Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER In the Chair]

PRIVATE BUESINSS

DARTMOOR COMMONS BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Association of Metropolitan Authorities

Mr. Ron Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends meeting representatives of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have any immediate plans to meet representatives of the AMA. I meet them as necessary from time to time on matters of mutual interest.

Mr. Davies: Will the Minister or her Secretary of State seek a meeting with the AMA? If she were to do so she would find from the urban areas of Britain a reception as hostile as that which she received from the rural areas, particularly Wales, on the proposed legislation on buses. Will she advise the Secretary of State that if such a meeting were held it might provide a convenient opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his proposals, to climb down and perhaps save what little face he has left?

Mrs. Chalker: As I said, I meet the AMA from time to time, particularly its members in the different authorities, and that includes members from the metropolitan county councils, who have been present at a number of meetings where this issue has been raised. I accept that many people are scared about what will happen, but that is a result of scaremongering and the failure to face the fact that competition has always brought about a better standard of service for the passengers. It is about time that we organised Britain's transport on the basis of the needs of passengers rather than of those who would administer it.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: When my hon. Friend meets the AMA, will she confirm to it, as to the House, that although rear seat belts may be desirable, she as no intention of making them compulsory?

Mrs. Dunwoody: That is matter for the House.

Mrs. Chalker: I am surprised that that should arise on this question, but one gets used to any subject coming up. We are studying carefully the Select Committee's recommendations and, as the hon. Member for Crewe and

Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) says, whether rear seat belts should be made compulsory would be a matter for the House and not for Ministers.

Mr. Alton: When the Minister meets representatives of the AMA, will she meet the Merseyside representatives and discuss with them the decision to close the link between the Isle of Man and Liverpool, a 150-year-old service, which the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company decided to terminate precipitously and arbitrarily on Friday last, putting people out of work and massively inconveniencing people who live on the island and on Merseyside?

Mrs. Chalker: That is not a matter for the AMA. From my reading of the newspapers, that service is not to be terminated but its destination point changed from Liverpool to Heysham. Obviously that is a matter of concern to everyone in the Liverpool area, but there must be good management reasons for that. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can draw some of his own conclusions.

Buses

Mr. Waller: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further responses he has received to the White Paper, "Buses", Cmnd. 9300.

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further representations he has received concerning the White Paper, "Buses".

Mr. Nellist: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has so far received to the White Paper, "Buses".

20. Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further representations he has received concerning the White Paper, "Buses".

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I received nearly 8,000 responses to the White Paper and the consultation documents which were issued subsequently.

Mr. Waller: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that those who genuinely wish to make a constructive contribution to the creation of a more appropriate framework for buses are becoming increasingly frustrated and irritated by the exaggerated claims and the distortions of those who are opposed to any change whatsoever? Does he agree that, far from abolishing standards, the Bill, with its many clauses, will reinforce them?

Mr. Ridley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I am grateful for what he said. Standards are important and, now that the Bill has been published, the House will have had the chance to see the statutory provisions that we propose to improve standards. Where there has been total deregulation in the long-distance coach industry, standards have improved enormously because operators realise that if they are to attract more customers it is in their interests to provide high standards.

Mr. Pike: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the serious concern expressed by many people who use public transport and many who run public transport that if the Bill goes forward as published it will be disastrous for off-peak services, rural services and concessionary fares? Will he take into account the views expressed at the seminar held today by Transport 2000?

Mr. Ridley: I beg to differ. The purpose of the Bill is to improve the matters which the hon. Gentleman listed. I assure him that I would not be seeking to legislate to make services worse. I believe he will discover that the effect of the combination of tendering for services, the rural bus grant and the new flexibility which the provisions of the Bill allow will be that rural services will improve very much. The hon. Gentleman ought to be very careful before suggesting otherwise from his rural area of Burnley.

Mr. Nellist: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Bill—a cowboys' charter—with its proposals to end internal cross-subsidisation, taken with the effects of the abolition of the West Midlands county council and other county councils, puts at risk up to 30 per cent. of services in Coventry and the rest of the west midlands? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his vague promises about the protection of pensioners' bus passes fall on stony ground, because it is no good having a bus pass if Sunday, evening and other services do not turn up at the bus stop?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has gone no further than obtaining a copy of the Bill. He clearly has not read it. If he had, he would know that if off-peak services are not provided by the operator—and I think that in many cases they will be—they can be provided by the local authority, which can put them out to tender in the way described in the Bill. That is also the case with concessionary fares. If those fares end in Coventry, the hon. Gentleman will know who to blame. It will be his own local authority and not me.

Mr. Beith: Regarding the tender proposals, how can a local authority receive realistic tender proposals for a route on which the operator could face competition from another operator who is prepared to take only the profitable part of that route?

Mr. Ridley: It would be a strange competitor who, without subsidy, challenged a subsidised operator on a route which had been genuinely uneconomic and had been put out to tender. The circumstances suggested by the hon. Gentleman seem to me extremely remote. However, if the position outlined by the hon. Gentleman occurred, I suggest that there could be a break clause in the contract and everybody would be pleased to know that part of the route that had been subsidised did not need subsidy, and that would save some money.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: When my right hon. Friend studies the responses to the White Paper, I hope that he will also study the report by Bristol university, which appeared in the papers today and confirmed that the Hereford experiment had been excellent and beneficial to consumers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as a loss-making publicly owned line in a rural area in my constituency can be replaced by a private, unsubsidised service, that shows that there is plenty of scope?

Mr. Ridley: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, though I have not yet had time to study the Bristol report. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary talked to well over 60 people on the buses in Hereford and found none who had anything but praise for the new system. Their only fear is that the deregulated system might be taken away from them, to their very great disadvantage.

Mr. Holt: Has my right hon. Friend had any responses from, or discussions with, the Bishop of Durham, who is

this week addressing a political meeting in Cleveland at which all Conservative and alliance Members have been refused the opportunity to speak?

Mr. Soeaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman talking about buses?

Mr. Holt: That is exactly what my question is about.

Mr. Ridley: The dreadful thing is, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. Friend was talking about buses in connection with the bishop. However, if the bishop is interested, I should be very happy to meet him and to take him through the Bill clause by clause.

Mr. Cowans: Might it not be in the interests of the House, and certainly those of the Secretary of State, if he could substantiate his case—if, indeed, he has one—by publishing all the responses and placing copies of them in the Library, so that we could see all those who are in favour of the proposals, all those who are against and the reasons why? The right hon. Gentleman should have nothing to fear if people support him to the extent that he claims.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that if responses are sent privately to me it would be quite wrong to publish them without first gaining the consent of those who wrote them. Anyone who wishes to publish his response to a consultative document is at liberty to do so himself.

Mr. Tracey: I am sure that most people will welcome the policy of added competition if it follows the example of Hereford, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) and by the article that appeared today in The Times. However, may I urge my right hon. Friend to reconsider greater competition for hire cars in the London area?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I am acutely aware of the point that he raised. It is a difficult issue, with arguments on both sides, but we can debate it at length in Committee. I do not have a closed mind about it.

Mr. Stott: The Secretary of State must be all too painfully aware of the representations that he has received on the content of the White Paper from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of District Councils, the Womens Institute, Rural Voice and the Taxi Drivers Association. If he had any sense he would listen to them instead of dispatching the Under-Secretary of State to travel round the country wining and dining local newspaper editors in order to create propaganda in favour of his Bill.

Mr. Ridley: If the hon. Gentleman had any sense he would listen to the voices of the consumers, to those of the National Consumer Council and to the people on the buses in Hereford. He would also stop taking the side of vested interests and come down on the side of the customer.

Later——

Mr. Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it directed to questions?

Mr. Holt: Directly, Mr. Speaker. May I apologise to you if I shouted and did not make it clear that the public rally to be addressed next week in Cleveland by the Bishop of Durham is exclusively to do with buses and has nothing to do with religion?

Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I queried his question. I am glad that the matter is now straight.

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has for his assertion that safety standards will be improved by implementation of the White Paper, "Buses".

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): The provisions in the Transport Bill reflect the Government's determination to maintain and tighten safety standards.

Mr. Madden: Is not the truth of the matter that the claim that deregulation will lead to better safety standards is as bogus as the claim that deregulation will lead to cheaper, better and more efficient transport services? Is it not about time that the Secretary of State, who is generally seen as a walking disaster area for good transport, tore up the Bill and allowed public authorities the proper level of resources to run improving and expanding public transport services?

Mr. Mitchell: Deregulation itself does not affect the safety level. We have never suggested that it would lead to higher safety standards. We have said that we shall put extra resources into ensuring that safety standards are properly maintained even though there may well be more operators than at present. The hon. Gentleman referred to better and cheaper services, and I should point out that our experience of the test areas is that deregulation produces more, better and cheaper services, and is liked by the customer.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that al the last count 60 per cent. of National Bus Company buses had failed the first test? Will he also confirm that Lancashire county council is needlessly worrying many people by publishing figures that will frighten them off the buses? Will he further confirm that many of the representations that he receives are merely in the form of cut-out bits from newspapers that are paid for with £135,000 of ratepayers' money?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend has got the figures slightly wrong. Perhaps I can help her and the House. A total of 60 per cent. of the National Bus Company's buses passed on their admission, but 56 per cent. of the private sector buses passed—slightly less than for the National Bus Company—and 47 per cent. of London Transport buses passed, which is substantially less.

Mr. Strang: Does the Minister understand that his Bill is bound to lead to cowboy operators with clapped out buses driven by part-time non-union drivers racing from stop to stop? Does he agree that that is bound to lead to lower safety?

Mr. Mitchell: The experiment in Hereford and Worcester shows that as soon as unsafe vehicles appear on the road they are put off by Department inspectors. We shall devote adequate resources to ensure that that system continues and is dealt with effectively. The Bill contains powers to deal with racing.

Mr. Gregory: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that under the Bill there will be more safety checks, because 2,300 buses and coaches failed their special

inspection test in 1983–84, and at the annual inspection a staggering 21·4 per cent. failed? Will he assure the House that the consumer will have better safety protection?

Mr. Mitchell: We are taking the necessary steps to ensure that adequate resources are available for the task. I have not said that there will be a significant improvement in existing standards, but steps are being taken by most operators to improve the level of passes. There are some unfortunate gaps. A recent chance survey of 5 per cent. of London Transport stock resulted in half the buses being put off the road immediately.

Mr. Stephen Ross: When the Minister visited Herefordshire, did he discuss the many complaints about parking offences, the allegations about wilful damage to coaches and the allegations about coaches operating without proper licences granted by the chief constable? Did he discover why such complaints were not followed up and why prosecutions were not followed through?

Mr. Mitchell: I went to hear the views of the county council, the city council and the users. Their views were clear and emphatic. The county council is well pleased with what it has. The Liberal city council adopts the somewhat illiberal view that it does not like a lot of buses in the city centre. The customers are thoroughly pleased with what they have and do not want to go back to the previous system.

Mr. Roger King: Will my hon. Friend note that some of the buses that we saw in Hereford last week on our recent trip with the independants, were more modern than the equivalent National Bus Company buses? Does he agree that there was strong evidence to suggest that existing safety standards and inspection were biased towards the independants, and not against the National Bus Company, which has been guilty, perhaps, of just as many misdemeanours?

Mr. Mitchell: I travelled on as many bus services as I could and I found better standards in the private sector than on some of the Midland Red buses operating in the town.

Mr. Snape: Nonsense.

Mr. Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman goes there he will see that what I say is so. Moreover, the customers seem to like the softer seats and the greater comfort in the private sector coaches.

Mr. Park: Will the extra resources to which the Minister has referred enable private operators to purchase buses which have the same ease of entrance and exit as public service vehicles?

Mr. Mitchell: The ability of private sector operators to purchase buses and to dispose of them is unaffected by the Bill. The requirement in law already is that buses have to be submitted for tests and that the operator cannot operate without an operator's licence with all its conditions.

Mr. Maclean: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that private operators come to my constituency surgeries urging that the measure be passed? Is he aware that in view of their high standard of excellence and the high standards of private enterprise activity in my constituency, they resent Labour Members referring to them as "cowboys"?

Mr. Mitchell: I note my hon. Friend's point. I am sorry that the word "cowboy" has been coined, because it


seems to be applied only to operators starting up new businesses. I should have thought that the House was interested in seeing more people having the chance to start businesses, so creating employment.

Mrs. Dunwoody: If the hon. Gentleman resents the use of the word "cowboys", perhaps he will say how he would describe a Hereford operator who maintained his buses in a lay-by and an operator who had his licence taken away because 47 immediate dangers were found. How will the Department be able to monitor safety standards when he is reducing the number of people involved in examining vehicles and when the number of traffic commissioners is being reduced from three to one?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Lady is wrong to say that we are cutting down on the numbers. The number of faults found in the case of the Hereford operator to whom she referred is an indication that the system is working effectively. [Interruption] Those vehicles were stopped, were identified as being inadequately maintained and were put off the road. That is what the House should want in the interests of safety.

Trunk Roads (Inquiry Procedures)

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his response to the proposals for improving and accelerating trunk road inquiry procedures contained in the recent report on the subject by the National Economic Development Council.

Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and the Environment are considering the Civil Engineering Economic Development Committee's report and hope to give their response by the spring.

Mr. Hughes: Should not the findings of all public inquiries be published at the earliest possible moment? Why is the Secretary of State sitting on the report on the Severn bridge relating to the proposal to increase tolls by 150 per cent.? Will the Minister take note of the Prime Minister's recent assertion that direct questions need direct answers?

Mrs. Chalker: I shall do my best to give the hon. Gentleman a direct reply. He clearly does not understand the system of or legal background applying to public inquiries; otherwise, he would not ask for the publication of reports at the earliest opportunity. They are often weighty tomes, as we have seen in recent years, and all the elements with which the inspectors deal in them need careful consideration, and that we certainly give to them.
My right hon. Friend is not sitting on any report, and nor am I. The inspector's report on the Severn bridge tolls increase was received in November. We are working on it. When we are ready to make a decision, a decision letter will be issued, followed by the matter being advertised in the local press and the laying of the necessary order signed by the Minister and subject to the negative resolution procedure in this House.

Mr. Higgins: Any move to improve and accelerate trunk road inquiries procedures is to be welcomed. Does my hon. Friend agree that a sufficient number of inquiries need to be completed so that, if additional resources become available, work can go ahead without being held up by planning considerations?

Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In addition to the 55 schemes currently under construction and two at public inquiry, 273 schemes are in preparation, so creating a shelf of schemes which can be brought forward when resources permit.

Long-distance Coach Industry

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the percentage increase in passengers that has taken place since the deregulation of the long-distance coach industry.

Mr. David Mitchell: Comprehensive statistics are not available, but the number of passengers carried on NBC's National Express services, which has about 70 per cent. of the market, increased by 45 per cent. between 1980 and 1983. As independent operators undertook very little long-distance coaching before deregulation, they must have increased their carryings by an even greater figure.

Mr. Atkinson: Is it not a fact that deregulation has produced cheaper fares, better services, more passengers and more jobs for the British long-distance coach industry? Is that not evidence enough to suppose that the same will happen to the British bus industry, given the safeguards and standards contained in the Transport Bill?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct in his catalogue of the benefits that have come from deregulation of long-distance coaches. Similar benefits came from deregulation of long-distance internal air services. The principle seems to hold good.

Mr. Dobson: What has been the parallel reduction in NBC services over and above the 42 million passenger miles by which they were reduced in the first year after the deregulation of long-distance coaches came into operation?

Mr. Mitchell: What we have seen has been a change in the pattern. The overall effect has been to satisfy more people because more people are using the services than before to a very substantial extent—rather more than 40 per cent.

Airports Policy

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's airports policy.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): When my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Transport announce the decision on the Stansted/Heathrow terminal 5 planning inquiries, we intend also to make a statement dealing with some wider aspects of the Government's airports policy.

Mr. Adley: I welcome that comment. In the light of the rejection by the House of the Eyre report, will my hon. Friend make it clear that in future decisions on airports policy in this country will be made as a consequence of, and not as a motivating factor in, regional and economic planning policy? Does he accept that other transport infrastructure developments such as rail links to Heathrow are part of the environmental price that we have to pay for trying to civilise air transport in this country?

Mr. Spicer: I agree entirely that regional airports should be developed as fast as demand in the region


allows. The regional airports have become a great success story. As a whole, they are now in profit and the Government have made capital expenditure allocations of above £30 million this year and next year. We intend to build on that success.

Mr. Alfred Morris: In view of the rejection of the inspector's recommendations on Stansted by so many Members on both sides of the House in last Wednesday's debate, is there any action that the Minister can take to stop cross-subsidisation of Stansted airport by the British Airports Authority? Is he aware that that unfair competition causes not just exasperation but anger among other airport authorities?

Mr. Spicer: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are very much aware of the representations that have been made and the feelings that have been expressed, but these matters will have to be part of the total decision taken as a result of the report.

Mr. Haselhurst: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the current review of tourism policy will not take place in isolation from consideration of airports policy?

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend has made his views on the promotion of toursim in relation to aviation policy very clear and I am sure that his views are being well noted.

Mr. Kennedy: With regard to airports rather further north than Stansted, does the Minister agree that the Government's recent climb-down after their abortive efforts to sell off the civil aviation airports in the Highlands and Islands shows the strength of local feeling and the effectiveness of the CAA's campaign, the level of public support for the socially crucial airports of the Western Isles and the Highlands generally and the fact that blind pursuit of dogma favouring privatisation where it is clearly not applicable makes no sense at all?

Mr. Spicer: We received several offers for those airports but none met the criteria that we had laid down—that the airports should continue to meet the social needs. Nor did they contribute satisfactorily to reducing the current annual subsidy of £3¼ million.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister make it clear that there is no question of the House having rejected the Eyre report? Does he agree that it would be tragic if the Government abandoned progress on Stansted and other developments because of a procedural vote representing a minority of the House? Is he aware that many Members of Parliament and many people in Essex would regard it as a tragedy if the Stansted proposals were abandoned?

Mr. Spicer: My right hon. Friends will take into account all that was said in the Stansted debate, but they will have to make their own judgments.

Mr. Snape: Does the Under-Secretary accept that, despite the views of the exiled and Southend-based Scotsman who has just spoken, a majority of the House will not sanction a third London airport at Stansted or anywhere else, but will demand that a greater share of Britain's financial resources be put towards the development of regional airports?

Mr. Spicer: I have already answered the point about regional airports. With regard to the decision on Stansted airport: the hon. Gentleman, I am afraid, will have to wait for my right hon. Friend's decision.

Nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse

Mr. Gerald Bowden: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what information and assistance has been supplied to the shipping, aircraft and motor industries on protective measures against the effects of nuclear electromagnetic pulse.

Mr. Couchman: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he gives to local authorities to ensure that their essential transport for emergency purposes will not be affected by nuclear electromagnetic pulse.

Mr. Michael Spicer: A report by an interdepartmental working party on the effect on communications will be available to Ministers later this year. Advice about measures to counteract electromagnetic pulse is given to shipowners by the Ministry of Defence, to airlines by the Civil Aviation Authority and to local authorities by the Home Office.

Mr. Bowden: Will my hon. Friend ensure that there are places available on training courses so that those who are concerned with those matters may have an opportunity to learn about the effects of nuclear electromagnetic pulse?

Mr. Spicer: I shall certainly consider that matter and perhaps write to my hon. Friend about it later.

Mr. Councham: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that local authorities which have declared themselves nuclear-free zones in the misconceived notion that they will escape the holocaust will take the advice that is given to them about safeguarding their vehicles?

Mr. Spicer: The advice that local authorities take and the giving of advice to them is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

A127 and A13

Dr. Michael Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what was the peak hours traffic density on the A127 and the A13 in the latest year for which figures are available; and how these densities compare with those on similar trunk roads in conurbations elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Chalker: Average peak hour flows on the A13 and A127 inside Greater London are 4,000 and 3,700 respectively. Those densities are comparable with those for similar trunk roads in conurbations.

Dr. Clark: Are there any long-term plans for a motorway to serve south-east Essex, bearing in mind the high traffic density on the A13 and A127? Can my hon. Friend assure the House that the dualling of the A13 will be speeded up and that some attention will be given to the London end of the A13 and the A127, where traffic congestion is unacceptable?

Mrs. Chalker: There are no plans for motorways in Essex in the way that my hon. Friend describes. However, we are conscious that until the M25 is fully open there will continue to be usage of the A13 and the A127 by traffic which might otherwise use the M25 and other routes. There are plans to improve the A13 at its junction with the A117. That was added to the programme in May 1983. At the moment we are checking over alternative routes at Rainham on the A13 to try to help the congestion that


occurs in the narrow areas of the A13 where it has not yet been dualled. Further than that, we have plans, but they will gradually come together over the coming months, and when the review of the trunk road network is complete I shall have more information for my hon. Friend.

Road Crossings

Ms. Richardson: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department is looking into alternative road crossings to subways.

Mrs. Chalker: Alternative road crossings, including footbridges, pelicans and zebras, are available, and the choice is for the highway authority depending on the local circumstances. The matter is kept under constant review.

Ms. Richardson: Is the Minister aware—I am sure that she is—of the great fears experienced by many people, especially women, when they use subways, where violence, muggings and so on might occur? Will the hon. Lady instigate a survey into the extent of the problem? Does she agree that the provision of surface crossings and the cost of planning and producing them is negligible by comparison with the protection of women and elderly people?

Mrs. Chalker: I share the hon. Lady's concern about what sometimes goes on in subways, where not only women are affected. The policing aspect is a matter for the Home Office. In recent years, we, for our part, have done what we can to improve the design of subways. I shall send the hon. Lady the design specifications for new subways, but I agree with her that the cheapest form of helping people cross the road is an island in the centre of the road, followed by zebras, pelicans and footbridges, all of which work out more cheaply than subways, but sometimes are not a feasible answer in view of the land in the area and the junctions near the main crossing points used by the local population.

Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fashion for building subways, particularly as pedestrian crossings on busy suburban roads, has now largely passed, but that many local authorities are left with these landmarks to past theory? As a consequence, will she make the advice of her Department available to those authorities which, over the next few years, would like to replace these white elephants but are to some extent concerned about the cost of doing so?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend raises a valid point. Advice on subways already exists, and I shall send him copies of it. Sometimes it is almost impossible to widen the entrances to subways or to straighten existing subways, and in those cases local authorities may need to look at surface crossings, as the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) intimated in her supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

North London Polytechnic

Mr. Greenway: asked the Attorney-General if, pursuant to his reply of 17 January, Official Report, column 191, he has any information as to whether the officers of the students' union of the North London polytechnic have now given any undertaking regarding their readiness to comply with the injunction granted by

the High Court on 11 December 1984, restraining them from making or authorising payments from the funds of the students union to striking miners; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): The officers of the North London polytechnic students' union offered to give certain undertakings and at the same time asked for a revocation of the orders made by the court restraining them from doing certain acts and appointing a receiver and manager of the union funds. Their application came before the court this morning. While accepting the officers' undertakings, the court considered them insufficient in the light of the officers' past conduct and it therefore ruled that its previous order appointing the receiver should remain in force for the time being.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in welcoming the restraint placed by the law upon the students union officers of the polytechnic of North London from giving a further £10,000 of public money out of student union funds to the striking miners? Will he use every means that he can to recover the £3,000 already wrongly applied by the same people to the same cause and in defiance of their charitable status?

The Attorney-General: The purpose of my application to the court for the appointment of a receiver was to prevent the misuse of union funds. I prevented the payment of two cheques, each of £5,000, although in one case £2,150 in cash was drawn by the officers from the bank and handed over to a particular miner. Previously, another sum of £1,000 was handed over. It may be that the court will order them personally to seek to repay that.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the Attorney-General not accept that members of a student union or any other democratic organisation have a right to express their support for those who are fighting for their jobs and communities and that there have been an unwarranted and unfair series of press attacks on the leadership of the polytechnic of North London students union because of this matter, not least by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway)?

The Attorney-General: If, of course, these people wish to use their own money no one will complain, but they are trustees of large sums of public money given to them by the Government, and that can be used only for the purpose for which it was given.

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Adley: asked the Attorney-General how many cases are still outstanding in the courts in relation to offences alleged to have been committed in relation to the miners' strike; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: During the period from 14 March 1984 to 29 January 1985, 7,653 persons were charged with a total of 9,901 offences alleged to have been committed during the course of the current miners' dispute. Of these, 4,874 defendants have been dealt with and the cases of 2,779 remain to be heard.

Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for those figures. Is it not a fact that had there been no foregathering of members of Arthur Scargill's private army at many of the coal mines, intent on intimidating those who merely wanted to work, there would have been no need for the police presence in the first place? Does he


therefore agree with this morning's statement by the leader of the Social Democratic party, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), that this sort of thuggery should have no part whatever in industrial relations organisations in this country?

The Attorney-General: I have no hesitation in agreeing with that. Picketing, as approved by the TUC and as part of the miners' own rules, is limited to six. If there are hundreds or, indeed, thousands of pickets, at best it is a demonstration and, at worst, a riot.

Mr. Barron: Will the Attorney-General tell the House how many of the 4,874 miners who have already been dealt with have been found not guilty? In Rotherham magistrates' court 75 per cent. of cases in which miners have been charged have been dismissed by the magistrates.

The Attorney-General: The total number acquitted by all the courts trying miners is 1,169.

Mr. Spencer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that recent experience tends to show that those whose cases still remain to be dealt with will get a fair hearing by magistrates or juries, and that, if the evidence is sufficient, there will be a conviction and that otherwise there will be an acquittal? Does he agree that the criminal justice system is sufficiently resilient to deal with violent pressure put upon it, no matter who exerts the pressure?

The Attorney-General: I do not doubt the independence of the courts or the juries which try these cases. Many of the cases still awaiting trial will be heard in the Crown court.

Mr. Mason: Will the Attorney-General, in concert with the Home Secretary, call upon the chief constables in the coalfields to have the fingerprints and photographs of the 1,169 miners who were arrested and acquitted of all charges erased from police records, in order to clear the records, reputations and characters of those miners?

The Attorney-General: I shall make certain that that comment is passed on to my right hon. and learned Friend. It cannot be a matter for me.

Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that, as the strike peters to an end, if and when violence increases in certain areas within the coal mining areas, the most vigorous action will be taken to ensure that the public are protected and that the cases that are brought before the courts are dealt with as quickly as possible?

The Attorney-General: Obviously, it is desirable that there should be the least possible delay. It is equally desirable that those who are awaiting trial on cases unconnected with the miners' dispute should not lose their place in the queue. This is a matter entirely for the chief constables, as they are absolutely independent of the Government.

Mr. John Morris: Without having to repeat to the House my view of 19 December, that everyone who breaks the law must be answerable for it, will the Attorney-General consult the Home Secretary about the extent of the damage that has been done to respect for the law in the mining communities, arising from the fact that breaches of the law have not been entirely one-sided, and arising from such things as the operation of restrictive bail

conditions and the stopping of innocent travellers on their way to work, which has left considerable bitterness? Will the Government consider how they intend to rebuild confidence in the law in those areas, and will they encourage everyone within the Government to be particularly sensitive to that aspect in handling their legal responsibilities in mining areas?

The Attorney-General: I accept that there will be many wounds that will need healing. I suspect that there will be an equally large number of wounds that need healing between working and striking miners. If one considers the endless demonstrations, which amount to intimidation, and the various charges that have been brought, it seems ridiculous to put any blame for that on the police.

Legal Aid

Mr. Dubs: asked the Attorney-General what arrangements Her Majesty's Government have made to monitor the effects of the means assessment and contributions system introduced into criminal legal aid by the Legal Aid Act 1982.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Statistics returned by magistrates' courts will now include details of contribution orders made by the courts.

Mr. Dubs: Although I welcome the decision to begin to monitor these arrangements, will the Solicitor-General tell us in more detail how the monitoring will be carried out, bearing in mind that many believe that means-testing is a waste of time because the high administrative costs involved exceed any savings that may be made?

The Solicitor-General: The principal way in which the monitoring is being carried out is through the more accurate and simpler form of return that has been in use since 1 March last year. The magistrates' courts are returning those forms, but unfortunately we do not yet have all the forms for last year. However, the courts are providing better information. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is also considering the use of survey research over relatively small areas.

Mr. Ryman: Is not an enourmous amount of public money wasted by giving legal aid to wealthy criminals who say that they cannot liquidise their assets between committal and trial? Would it not be fairer to give money to poor defendants, who genuinely cannot afford legal representation, and to force rich defendants to pay for their own defences?

The Solicitor-General: Although I have much sympathy with the underlying thought of the hon. Gentleman's question, it would probably be impossible to devise a legal aid scheme which could be operated with absolute certainty that there was no waste. Since legal aid is as much in the interests of justice because it enables the court to do its work efficiently, we must err on the side of liberality. However, I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's question is brought to the attention of the Lord Chancellor.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Ethiopia

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are Her Majesty's Government's plans for long-term development aid to Ethiopia.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): I consider that the World Bank and the European Community, to whose aid funds we contribute largely, are in the best position to provide appropriate long-term development aid to Ethiopia. We shall also be considering what we can do bilaterally, but meanwhile we shall constinue our plans to support education and training.

Mr. Chapman: In view of the still urgent need for immediate help to Ethiopia, does my right hon. Friend agree that long-term funding and sustained aid to that country must remain a foremost priority of our overseas aid programme? Essential to the success of such aid must be the co-operation of the Ethiopian Government. Does my right hon. Friend believe that the Ethiopian Government are providing the necessary co-operation?

Mr. Raison: No one can doubt the need for long-term development in Ethiopia. However, we must recognise that it will not be easy to achieve, partly because of the raging civil war in that country, and partly because the Ethiopian regime has collectivist ideas about agriculture and other matters, alongside which it may be difficult to work.

Mr. Barnett: Does the Minister recognise that often in the wake of famine people who are directly affected are much more likely to listen sympathetically and encouragingly to the idea of development on new lines that will make their position more secure? Therefore, in view of British expertise in tropical agriculture, will the Minister consider seriously the possibility of a well-mounted bilateral programme?

Mr. Raison: Under the pressure of the appalling circumstances in Ethiopia, a more open-minded and receptive approach may develop in its Government. I hope that that will be so. But we must consider carefully how much of our effort can be done bilaterally and how much of it through the multilateral agencies. A large proportion of our aid programme goes to those multilateral agencies.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there is to be long-term development in Ethiopia and sub-Saharan Africa the co-ordination of all aid givers will be essential, together with political and economic reform? In that case, does he agree that the World Bank and the special fund for Africa are the obvious means with which to effect that objective? How then can he defend Britain's position in Paris on Friday in not contributing to the special fund?

Mr. Raison: I fully agree that co-ordination and policy reform are essential. We have told the World Bank that we shall make available £15 million a year for five years, which will be used to work closely with its special facility and with exactly the same objectives as the World Bank has.

Mr. Alton: What best estimates can the Minister give about the numbers of refugees who are likely to be in

danger of their lives as a result of the continued famine in Ethiopia? What representations have Her Majesty's Government made to the Ethiopian authorities about the firing of shots at refugees trying to flee the country?

Mr. Raison: It is difficult to give figures about the numbers of refugees who might leave Ethiopia in the coming months. When I was in Ethiopia I made it clear to the Ethiopian Government that we believe that they must do all that they can to allow food to reach those who need it. We are also talking to the International Red Cross to see whether it can take steps to bring about some further relaxation of the hostilities which are making the transmission of food more difficult than it need be.

Sub-Saharan Africa

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has recently received about further aid for sub-Saharan Africa.

Mr. Raison: I continue to receive many such representations.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the weekend report that as many as 34 million people in 20 African countries are at risk of dying from starvation in what has been described as potentially the greatest catastrophe ever to have visited this planet, and bearing in mind that in response to the Ethiopian appeal the great generosity of the British people was not, unfortunately, matched by the British Government, will the Minister ensure a far more generous response to the World Bank's special fund for Africa, along the lines of early-day motion 323, which has the support of over 100 Labour Members?

Mr. Raison: Nobody would deny the gravity of the situation in central, eastern and southern Africa, although happily in southern Africa there has been an improvement in the rainfall. I wholly reject the suggestion that the British Government have not made an adequate response to the problem. We have given large quantities of aid, both before October last year, when the television films brought to everybody's attention what was happening in Ethiopia, and since. We shall continue to play a full part in this.

Mr. Baldry: Why is it that the Government are prepared to give funds to run alongside the World Bank programme but not to give funds to the World Bank programme? That distinction has escaped a large proportion of hon. Members.

Mr. Raison: Both my right hon. and learned Friend and I have often said that we are anxious to maintain within our overall aid programme a fair share of the bilateral element, and that is essentially what this is about. We are prepared to work for the same objectives, but on the other hand we wish to keep this within the bilateral framework and to make certain decisions ourselves rather than hand them over to the World Bank. We should be able to come up with a successful scheme.

Mr. Anderson: What will history make of a Chancellor who considered the billions spent on the mining dispute as a good investment, but at the same time refused $50 million a year to avert the human catastrophe in Africa? Will the Minister confirm that there is not one penny of new money in the £15 million that he has mentioned, and that we, alone in Western Europe, have not contributed to the special fund?

Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The arrangements which Japan and Germany are negotiating are similar to the arrangements which we are discussing. As to the new money, in planning ahead in our aid programme we made special allowance for exceptional contingencies and disasters, and we would be foolish not to do so. Whether this is new money or not is an abstraction. The important thing is to provide effective aid.

Sudan (Drought)

Mr. Mark Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action Her Majesty's Government are taking to assist drought victims in the Sudan.

Mr. Raison: Some 15,000 tonnes of our own cereals aid will shortly reach Port Sudan through the world food programme, and we expect the European Community, which has already committed 51,000 tonnes, to allot further substantial amounts from the 1·2 million tonnes agreed at the Dublin summit.
From our bilateral programme £7·5 million has been provided to the international refugee organisations and to voluntary agencies working in the Sudan, either in food or in cash. I have today agreed a further £500,000 to assist the Save the Children Fund, one of the British voluntary agencies working in both east and west Sudan.

Mr. Robinson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. He will be aware, from the television coverage over the weekend, of the problem of refugees coming from Ethiopia into Sudan. Will he consider visiting Sudan to ensure that the assistance being given is used in the most effective manner?

Mr. Raison: I am very much aware of the great public concern about the situation in the Sudan, and I intend to visit the Sudan this month.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the right hon. Gentleman share the obvious disappointment of his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who said in the House last week that the Foreign Affairs Council had not met anything like the target that it had in mind for helping these areas? Given that view, will the right hon. Gentleman, as a Minister, add his support to the voice of the British public in saying that they will not accept that the food mountains are growing and that we are not making the contribution of which we are capable?

Mr. Raison: The contribution agreed by the European Community is a very substantial one, because 1·2 million tonnes of food grain is a very large amount. What remains to be done is to make sure that that food aid is allocated to those places where it is most desperately needed, rather than be used somewhat indiscriminately, as has sometimes been the case.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &amp;c.

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the four motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Amendments of the Potato Marketing Scheme 1955, as amended, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Potatoes (Assured Markets) Order 1985 (S.I., 1985, No. 63) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Potatoes (Protection of Guarantees) Order 1985 (S.I., 1985, No. 64) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Tay Road Bridge (Scheme) Approval Order 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Opposition Day

[7TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Speaker: We now move to the Opposition Day and the important debate on the coal mining dispute.
Some 43 right hon. and hon. Members have written to me asking whether they may take part in the debate. I propose to invoke the 10-minute limit on speeches between 6 o'clock and 10 minutes to 8, but I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members who speak in the debate will take that as an indication of the length of speeches to be expected today so that not too many right hon. and hon. Members are disappointed.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I beg to move,
That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government for their public and private activities to impede progress towards negotiations in the mining dispute, despite the massive costs to the nation of prolonging the strike; welcomes the decision of the National Union of Mineworkers to seek an immediate resumption of negotiations with the National Coal Board without preconditions; and demands that the Government takes a positive approach by urging the National Coal Board to settle this long and damaging dispute forthwith.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Orme: It is evident that the Government do not want an acceptable settlement negotiated between the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board but that they want victory over the NUM and especially over Mr. Arthur Scargill. The Government engineered the situation hoping that today there would be a massive return to work—[HON. MEMBERS: "There has been."] The NCB said that there had been a massive return to work today, but there has not been, and I remind the House that there are still more than 130,000 miners on strike. Despite the Government's engineering, they have not succeeded and they will not succeed. The only answer to end the dispute is a negotiated settlement between the NUM and the NCB.
The role of the Prime Minister in the dispute is evident for all to see. One has only to read her statements in recent days. She now leads the campaign against the NUM. It is a campaign that goes back to 1981. At that time the Prime Minister accepted "Plan for Coal". However, she started then to plan for the present dispute.
We should remind ourselves of why the dispute began. On 6 March 1984, the NCB announced that it intended to cut capacity in the coal mining industry by 4 million tonnes. On 7 March, The Guardian reported that announcement as
The daunting prospect of a loss of at least 21,000 jobs in the next year".
That was the announcement which precipitated this long and damaging dispute. That was the announcement which breached prior agreements with the trade unions and which undermined established and effective procedures, including "Plan for Coal".

Mr. Tim Eggar: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Orme: No. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop the case a little. This is an important debate. I want to make my case, and I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members want to listen to the debate.
The NCB's announcement was a unilateral action which provoked the strike. The NUM had no demands on the table. It was the action of the NCB nearly one year ago that has led to the present circumstances. It is clear why the announcement resulted in the vast majority of miners taking industrial action. They are worried about their immediate jobs and about the threat to entire mining communities which are in socially and economically deprived parts of the United Kingdom. They are worried about their jobs now, about jobs in the future and about mining communities throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Peter Rost: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Orme: No.
We now have an independent analysis which shows that, if the NCB's policy was carried through, 70,000 jobs and 70 pits would go in less than five years. That represents nearly 50 per cent. of the work force.
The levels of unemployment are already incredibly high in the coalfields. Such areas already suffer the despair and deprivation that comes from the loss of jobs and incomes. I refer to south Yorkshire, Scotland, south Wales and the north-east, where unemployment continues to rise. In each of those areas, two people out of five have been out of work for more than one year. In the face of that, miners and their families have used their only weapon to resist the destruction of their collieries and communities and to save the coal mining industry.

Mr. Rost: rose——

Mr. Orme: Offering decent redundancy payments can never be a substitute for guaranteeing employment now or in the future. We hear a lot from the Government about their generous schemes for paying compensation to those who give up jobs in coal, steel, shipbuilding, the motor industry and in the docks, but when will the Government announce that an industry needs an extra 20,000 workers? Where are the new jobs in Merthyr, Barnsley and Fife to come from?
After 11 months of the Government waging a war of attrition, after 11 months of the Government using every weapon in their possession against the miners, the strike has not collapsed. After 11 months, the Government think that the defeat of the NUM is in sight. This is a dangerous and short-sighted attitude, but whatever happens the Government are the losers. Their inflexible attitude has created bitterness among the work force upon whom the nation's energy prospects depend. A bitter, defeated work force is not productive. The Government's desire to humiliate the leaders of that work force will result in rancour and ill feeling towards the management of the industry. However, in my opinion, the Government will not bring about that defeat by the policies that they are pursuing.

Mr. Rost: Would the right hon. Gentleman please tell us whether the official Opposition support the view of the leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers, that no pit should be closed upon economic grounds in any circumstances?

Mr. Orme: I shall answer that central point during my speech. In the last few weeks, the Government have dismissed the prospect of talks with contempt, as a waste of time. A campaign has been mounted and led from Downing street by the Prime Minister's press officer, Mr. Bernard Ingham, that is aimed at personalising the dispute. This campaign has been followed up by Mr. David Hart, who has acted covertly, shuttling between No. 10 and the National Coal Board, attempting to prevent a settlement. However, he has gone public now. An article appeared under Mr. Hart's name in The Times on 26 January 1985. If Mr. Hart has got nothing to do with this dispute, it is interesting that an article appeared in the The Times that has behind it the authority and backing that we know it has.
Mr. Hart said:
Any true negotiation now would represent defeat for the Coal Board and the nation … The time for negotiated settlements is past".
Is that the policy of the Government? Is that the policy of the Prime Minister? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Is that what the Prime Minister wants — victory? Is this the Falklands factor coming into play? Is that what the Prime Minister wants? The Prime Minister will not answer. This type of action is in direct contrast with the actions of the Opposition. [Laughter.] Hon. Members can laugh, but the Opposition have argued consistently that this dispute can be ended only by negotiations that produce an honourable settlement that is acceptable both to the National Union of Mineworkers and to the National Coal Board.

Mr. Eggar: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Orme: No. Unlike the Secretary of State, I have made every effort over a period of 11 months to bring about those negotiations.

Mr. Michael Morris: They failed every time.

Mr. Orme: I can tell the hon. Member why they failed. The hon. Gentleman's Government made sure that they failed. I am confident that, if negotiations had started with the full executive of the NUM, without preconditions, a settlement would have been arrived at.
But we know the reasons why this has been prevented. The Government and the NCB have taken the extraordinary and unprecedented step of demanding written assurances from the NUM before negotiations can take place. No trade union will go into negotiations having first signed away its right to take action against management decisions with which it disagrees. No trade union will sign a document allowing for carte blanche cuts and job losses. No trade union will sign away its birthright in that way.
I have looked at the precedents. The last time that happened in Britain was in 1922, when the engineering employers locked out the engineering unions for nine months. They were then forced back to work on the terms that the Government are asking for at present. No trade union will make such a concession before negotiations have even started.

Mr. Eggar: rose——

Mr. Orme: When one looks at statements made during the dispute by the chairman of the NCB, it is even more extraordinary that the NUM's proposals for the resumption of negotiations without preconditions have been rejected. I remember Mr. MacGregor saying to me on one occasion

that he was ready for negotiations without preconditions, and the Secretary of State said the same. He is on record as saying the same. Now that is apparently no longer acceptable. Why?
I think that we have the answer if we turn to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on 30 October 1984:
The House should be in no doubt whatever but that the Government are prepared to pay the cost of resisting this strike, however long it lasts".—[Official Report, 30 October 1984; Vol. 65, c. 1184.]
That is the British taxpayer underwriting the cost of the fight that the Government are putting up against the NUM.
That sums up the Government's attitude throughout—they are prepared to pay the cost. The direct cash cost to the Government of this action is now about £2·4 billion. It is estimated to be running at £80 million a week. That is mostly made up of extra costs to the CEGB of burning oil, losses to the NCB, lost taxation and losses incurred by British Steel, and the costs of policing and social security. The Government are indeed willing to pay any price to break the strike. That is evident from their present attitude.

Mr. Mark Robinson: rose——

Mr. Orme: Will the Secretary of State confirm those figures? If not, will he give the Government's figures of the present cost to the nation? It is the taxpayer who will have to bear the cost. Already the dispute, created and prolonged by the Government, has played a major part in the removal of a surplus on the balance of payments as expensive oil is burned instead of coal. There is also a direct link with the collapse of the pound and the rise in interest rates. It is obvious that foreign speculators have seen the continuation of the mining dispute as a major factor in the confidence in sterling. That was confirmed the week before last by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) during the debate on unemployment.
We all know and recognise that the Government's attitude to the dispute has little to do with energy policy—if the Government have one. The strike has exposed the fact that they are without any strategy or consistency in their approach to the nation's energy resources or needs. Commentators have become increasingly aware of the lack of any planning or foresight. One has claimed that he went looking for Britain's energy policy and found that there was not one. That he described as the Secretary of State's "pipeline to nowhere". That is the Government's approach during the whole of the 11 months' dispute.
If the Government had an energy policy, they would be eager to find a settlement to the dispute. Indeed, if they had an energy policy that recognised Britain's long-term needs, there would have been no demand for the cuts in capacity that the NCB outlined last March.

Mr. Mark Robinson: rose——

Mr. Orme: I have given way once, but I want to spell out our case and I know that many hon. Members wish to take part in this important debate. Therefore, I shall give way only to Ministers.
The House of Lords Select Committee has judged that, by the year 2000, coal demand in the European Community will have risen to more than 400 million tonnes and that reserves of coal in the United Kingdom will last for 260 years. A report from the Policy Studies Institute and the Royal Institute of International Affairs


forecasts that Britain could be importing up to 40 per cent. of its energy needs by 2000 unless our coal production expands. All that coal — yet we face the prospect of importing nearly half our energy resources. Surely even the Secretary of State can see that it makes sense for us to have a thriving coal industry.
The Secretary of State is more likely to be interested in today's balance sheet than in the survival of our resources for the future. However, even his approach to the balance sheet is short-sighted and faulty. We have argued that there is no case for closing pits on the narrow, short-term criteria used by the Government and the NCB. Even those narrow criteria are being challenged by leading academics.
The Financial Times world accounting report said:
The profit and loss accounts of the UK's coal pits are too arbitrary for the National Coal Board to be able to know from them which are its 'uneconomic' mines. This is a startling conclusion since plans to close 'uneconomic' pits are at the centre of a dispute between the NCB and the National Union of Mineworkers".
The report continues:
Assuming the … analysis is generally correct then either the NCB's accounting information has been used to identify the pits to be closed and thus the decisions are based on inaccurate information, or alternatively the closure decisions have been made on grounds which have not been made public and the accounting information has simply been used to publicly legitimise the closure decisions.
The NCB has loudly criticised that article but has failed to answer any of the points in it.
The argument about whether a colliery can be deemed economic has raged on, but there has been a notable absence of informed public debate. My hon. Friends know that in this argument, investment—particularly in old pits — oil prices, the exchange rate and many other factors have to be taken into account.
Let us look at the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers agreement. The Prime Minister said:
Unless the NUM is prepared to discuss the closure of uneconomic pits in accordance with the NACODS agreement, the next round of talks will founder as well." — [Official Report, 31 January 1985; Vol. 72, c. 436.]
First, there is no reference in the NACODS agreement to uneconomic pits. As the Secretary of State knows, a large part of the agreement was about working conditions, the closed shop and many other factors. There were discussions about the 6 March proposals and the five pits, but it is important to note that the union reserved the right to oppose pit closures if the new advisory machinery failed to get an agreement between the unions and the NCB.
The Secretary of State will also be aware that the NACODS executive met last Friday afternoon and sent a deputation to the NCB to see Mr. Spanton this morning. It told Mr. Spanton, in effect, that if the NCB went ahead and demanded a written undertaking from the NUM about pit closures, the NACODS agreement would be valueless. That is what it said.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to recommend that the NUM should accept the NACODS agreement?

Mr. Orme: This morning, Mr. Spanton was asked a question — [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] This morning, Mr. Spanton was asked a question by the general secretary and the president of NACODS. They

were not speaking on behalf of the NUM, but he was asked whether the Coal Board would still demand a written undertaking on uneconomic pits if the NUM said that it would accept the NACODS agreement as a basis for talks. Mr. Spanton refused to answer that quesion, and that is the answer to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Peter Walker: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not he is willing to make that recommendation?

Mr. Orme: This morning, NACODS asked the NCB to withdraw the preconditions in order to allow talks to proceed. Indeed, NACODS said that, if the NCB would not do so, it would be violating the NACODS agreement, and consequently that agreement is not worth the paper that is is written on.

Mr. Peter Hardy: My right hon. Friend has touched on an important point. Will he invite the Secretary of State to say in his speech whether he can answer the question that Mr. Spanton failed to answer when he was asked it this morning by the NACODS leaders? Does not the Secretary of State recognise that No. 10's insistence on the conditions now being applied to the NUM can be interpreted only as a breach of the agreement reached with NACODS?

Mr. Orme: I hope that the Secretary of State will answer that point, as it is central to this issue. At the moment, the NACODS agreement is in jeopardy. This morning NACODS told me that because of the lack of assurances from the NCB, it now felt that its agreement would not be acceptable within the industry. NACODS has raised this point, and until we receive some clarification we will not answer the Secretary of State's question. It has nothing to do with the matter. You are the Government, you are the Secretary of State——

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Orme: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State is responsible, and he must answer that point.
The NUM has been asked to sign a statement before negotiations begin that will allow the NCB to close pits that it classes as uneconomic. Furthermore, NACODS has evidence that the NCB and the Government are trying to rewrite the NACODS agreement. What price then the value of such an agreement? On that basis, I shall not underline or underwrite an agreement until the Secretary of State answers that question.
I come to the second round of talks on the agenda. The original talks between Mr. Heathfield and Mr. Ned Smith led to an agenda that was acceptable to both sides and could have led to direct negotiations. It was an agenda and not preconditions for talks or a written undertaking. They both took that agenda back to their respective bodies. Indeed, I have seen the agenda. [Interruption.] I have seen the agenda of the talks between Mr. Heathfield and Mr. Ned Smith. Can the Secretary of State tell the House what happened between those talks and the further talks between Mr. Heathfield and Mr. Spanton? Why did the coal board suddenly change tack? Why did it not go for negotiations?
The centre of the issue is the changing role played by the coal board — in my opinion carrying out the Government's policy—in recent days. Direct negotiations could have been started last week. If the Government believed that the NUM was not genuine, they and the


whole nation could have tested whether it was. However, the Government refused to allow the negotiations to go ahead.
As the Financial Times explained this morning, the Government are preventing talks on the basis of the coal board having a written undertaking that it is free to close pits, irrespective of negotiation and in contradiction of the NACODS agreement. The NUM is prepared to go to talks without preconditions. That means that any aspect and any subject can be discussed, including uneconomic pits. The NUM has a valid point. It also wants to discuss social factors. It wants to discuss investment, employment and all the central issues. Why should it not be able to discuss those issues? Why should it be faced with a counter-productive ultimatum?
We believe that if talks and direct negotiations were started a settlement could be arrived at. The union's decision to talk about the issues that I have mentioned on an open agenda is positive. The full executive would be present. Mr. MacGregor has said to me that he wants to talk to the full executive. This is his opportunity. Genuine negotiations could take place and we could achieve a settlement of this tragic dispute.
The miners have been out for 11 months. Families have suffered in the interests of what they believe to be the preservation of their communities and their industry. They have fought gallantly and they will not be forced back on their knees. They will not accept that.
If the Government would allow direct negotiations, the matter could be settled. The Secretary of State used a different emphasis at Question Time the other day. He said that he wanted a negotiated settlement. Every sensible person knows that a negotiated settlement is the only way out of the dispute. If the union were to ask its members to go back after 11 months on the basis of non-co-operation there would be chaos and anarchy in the industry.
This is an industry which the nation needs. Its people have served the nation over a long time. We need the wealth from the mines, now and in the future. We need the jobs in the mines, now and in the future. We need the miners with their skill and dedication, now and in the future. That is the reason for the Opposition motion today.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
deeply regrets the damage done to the coal industry, miners, miners' families and the mining communities by the unnecessary industrial action of some sections of the National Union of Mineworkers; recognises that this action is totally unjustified since this Government have provided more capital investment for the industry than any previous Government, far in excess of that provided by the last Labour Government, and substantially exceeding the scale of investment envisaged in 'Plan for Coal'; recognises it is also unjustified in the light of the National Coal Board's extremely generous offer on pay, early retirement and voluntary redundancy terms, and on the creation of a scheme designed to bring new enterprises and job opportunities to mining communities; notes the acceptance of the Board's offer by the industry's other two unions, and the refusal to strike by those sections of the National Union of Mineworkers which in that union's normal tradition decided to hold a ballot; deplores the Opposition's failure to persuade the National Union of Mineworkers both to arrange a national ballot and to use methods of picketing complying with National Union of Mineworkers and Trades Union Congress guidelines on picketing; regrets the National Union of Mineworkers leadership's intransigence, displayed in seven rounds of negotiations, including with the

Advisory, Concilliation and Arbitration Service whose compromise proposal was accepted by the Board but rejected by the National Union of Mineworkers; and expresses the hope that this intransigence will now cease so that a realistic settlement can quickly be achieved which recognises that the cost of production is an important factor in securing a good and prosperous future for the industry.
I am sure that the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) is sincere when he says that he wants a negotiated settlement. Like most right hon. and hon. Members he very much regrets the appalling 10 to 11 months of misery that the industry has suffered. However, the impression that he tries to create, that this is a dispute that the the Government required or relished, is totally contradicted by all the facts.
The tragedy is that 11 months ago there could have been a settlement without any form of industrial action. Let me remind the House of the proposals made by the National Coal Board at the beginning of March. The proposals that it sought to have discussed first at a regional level were open to further negotiations and discussions and they included proposals for higher investment and new marketing initiatives. But the National Union of Mineworkers decided to manipulate a national strike, not by a ballot and not—as we know, now that the facts of the meeting have come out—with the approval of the majority of the executive.
The right hon. Member for Salford, East knows that, had the NUM acted in accordance with the normal tradition of that union, had it acted as the Leader of the Opposition suggested privately and quietly that it should, the need for mass picketing, for mob violence and for any of the ghastly impact of the dispute would not have arisen.
Let us also recall that when Mr. Scargill decided to handle his executive in such a way that there would be no ballot, one third of Britain's coalfields decided in the normal tradition of the union to vote. Let the right hon. Gentleman never forget that the 68,000 miners who decided to vote last March voted overwhelmingly against strike action. However, they never had any support from the Labour party for the way in which they voted. In areas such as Nottingham, where the majority voted not to strike without a ballot, the deputy leader of the Opposition said that he would go against the majority of the voters and support the strikers.
What has been the basis of the strike? It has certainly not been a strike over pay. As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) knows, this Government paid miners rather better than he did when he was Secretary of State. It was certainly not a dispute over investment, because, as the whole country knows, in our first five years this Government invested not only much more than the Labour Government but much more than was envisaged in "Plan for Coal." In the negotiations last March the miners knew that another £3 billion of investment was to go into the industry. It was certainly not a strike about the guarantee that there would be not one compulsory redundancy in the industry.
The reason for the strike—and the only reason given by Mr. Scargill—was his demand that there should be no pit closures on economic grounds. That has been the basis of the strike from beginning to end. Mr. Scargill made that the reason because he knew that no Government and that no coal board could ever accept that proposal. We have known throughout, from the remarks of previous general secretaries of the NUM, that in the past no leader of the mineworkers' union has ever made such a demand.
We know from "Plan for Coal" that it was clearly envisaged that there would be closures of pits on economic grounds.
If one wants to be absolutely certain of the position of the last Labour Government, one cannot do better than look at their Coal Industry Act 1977, the sponsor of which was the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. One of the main operative clauses of that measure reads:
The Secretary of State"—
at the time the right hon. Member for Chesterfield—
with the approval of the Treasury may, out of money provided by Parliament, make to the Board such grants as in the opinion of the Secretary of State will further assist in the re-deployment of the manpower resources of the Board and the elimination of uneconomic colliery capacity.
[Interruption.] Those words appeared in the one major Act on the coal industry of the last Labour Government.
To bring ourselves up to date, we have the words of the Leader of the Opposition last week, when he said:
As always, you must include commercial considerations in deciding on pit closures.
Not once during this dispute has Mr. Scargill said, "You must take commercial considerations into account when considering whether to close a pit."

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I am sure that the debate, if not the right hon. Gentleman's case, will be assisted if he quotes me in full. I said:
I want an honourable settlement; and I want one which will ensure that foolish decisions about colliery closures are not taken. That they're taken on the proper grounds of exhaustion and safety, yes, including commercial considerations, has always been the fact before under the colliery review procedure; always will be in the future. But it's got to be an honourable settlement, because a blank cheque enabling people to close down whole communities on the basis of one or two years' accountants' figures, simply isn't a proper way to regard Britain's basic energy industry.
If only the Secretary of State would apply the colliery review procedure—if only he would value coal properly—this question would simply not arise and we would continue, as Mr. McNestry said last week, as we always have, successfully.

Mr. Walker: That is the most total contradiction of the Scargill case that we have ever heard. [Interruption.] At last during this phase, when clearly the majority of miners are going against the strike, we welcome the conversion of the Leader of the Opposition, although it is rather belated.
When the history of this matter is written, the lack of leadership by the right hon. Gentleman throughout the dispute—[Interruption.]—will be remembered. It will be remembered how he agreed to the change in the voting procedures on having a ballot, and then did not say a word when Mr. Scargill failed to have a ballot. His humiliating appearance at Stoke will long be remembered, when throughout he listened to the demands of Mr. Scargill saying, "We will never agree to a pit closure on economic grounds," and that remains the position of Mr. Scargill today.
Rather than any reluctance to have talks, there have already been seven rounds of talks, all with no preconditions. There were talks at ACAS, with an ACAS compromise proposal. Then there were the negotiations with NACODS, and the House will have witnessed the manner in which the right hon. Member for Salford, East

failed totally, as the Labour party has always failed, to say that they considered that the NACODS agreement should be acceptable to the miners.

Mr. Kevin Barron: The Secretary of State said that the Leader of the Opposition was sticking to the Scargill line. It seems that the Minister, and many of his supporters, are not aware of what the NUM is saying at this time. It may assist if I quote from a letter that was received on Friday by the coal board:
The Union's proposal takes account of the Board's own suggestions when we met with ACAS. This would provide for all matters relating to the future of Collieries/Units to be dealt with in accordance with the procedures operating prior to 6th March 1984.
It went on to say that the NUM accepted in principle the third party review. How can the Secretary of State stand at the Dispatch Box and mislead the House on this issue?

Mr. Walker: In all the wordings that have been used and in all the negotiations on an agenda that have taken place, the NUM has totally refused under any circumstances to consider the closure of uneconomic pits. [Interruption.] That is absolutely true. Had the NUM wished, it could have agreed to an agenda which would have dealt with the issue last week, and it could have done so in negotiations.

Mr. Hardy: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am associated with NACODS. Will he clear up the point that I raised in an intervention when my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) was speaking? NACODS does not see how the agreement which the Secretary of State has accepted, and which he referred to this afternoon, can hold water, given the demands now being placed on the NUM. Will he now answer the question that Mr. Spanton did not answer this morning?

Mr. Walker: NACODS was told clearly this morning by Mr. Spanton that the agreement with NACODS applied totally and completely, and Mr. Spanton made it clear at the same meeting that if the NUM wished to accept it, it could have a settlement today or tomorrow — [Interruption.]—and, therefore, there is no question of the NACODS agreement being other than available to NACODS and being available to the NUM. The whole House knows that when the NACODS negotiation was completed, it was the perfect basis for the NUM to come to a settlement, but throughout it has resisted doing that, and that remains the position today.

Mr. Orme: With or without a written undertaking? Is the Secretary of State saying, in effect, that the coal board still wants a written undertaking?

Mr. Walker: I am saying that during the course of last week — [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—the NUM was offered an agenda as a result of which that could have been discussed, but it refused it. It was offered that agenda without a written agreement, but it refused to have it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] That is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Orme: Will the Secretary of State now answer the question that was put this morning? Do the Government still insist on a written undertaking, apart from accepting the NACODS agreement?

Mr. Walker: I am saying that last week —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Walker: I am answering the right hon. Gentleman. My answer is that not only this morning, but before this morning, the NUM was offered an agenda, through the TUC, which it refused to accept.

Mr. Kinnock: Now answer the question.

Mr. Walker: The more that the NUM refuses to accept any such reasonable proposal, the more one can suspect that when it comes to a negotiation—[Interruption.]—in the same way that it always has, it will stick to its present position.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) was heard in silence.

Mr. Walker: I repeat, in relation to NACODS, that that agreement is available and has always been available to the NUM, but the Labour party has always failed to give it any support. Had it done so, there might have been a settlement long ago.

Mr. William O'Brien: If that is so, will the Secretary of State confirm that negotiations can take place without any written affirmations beforehand? Will he give that assurance?

Mr. Walker: I give the assurance that what is required is an agreed agenda for such discussions. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman consults the TUC about its unsuccessful attempt to get an agreed agenda.
It is important to understand the history of this dispute, which has done so much damage to miners and mining communities in the past 10 months. First, it was a dispute without a ballot, and those who were balloted were against it. Secondly, the speech of the right hon. Member for Salford, East today contained not one word of criticism of Mr. Scargill or the way in which he has conducted the dispute. One of the reasons why the dispute has gone on so long is this second failure of the Labour party. At no stage did the Labour party ever condemn the manner in which the mob was used to try to put an end to the dispute.
The use of the mob has been an important factor in the dispute. When one third of Britain's coalfields balloted to continue to work, the mob was organised to close those pits, but it failed. It was then mobilised to try to close the steel industry—first at Llanwern, then at Ravenscraig—but again it failed. Then, at Orgreave, a massive mob tried for 11 days to close one cokeworks to show that the mob could succeed, but once again it failed.

Mr. Dave Nellist: The Secretary of State seems keen to talk about failure and the way in which history will view the dispute. How will history reflect on a Government who said last year that they intended to save £275 million in so-called losses by the NCB and have spent £5·5 billion in 11 months trying to achieve that? Does he agree that it will be clear in the history books that the aim was to destroy the NUM, not to save money?

Mr. Walker: It is a remarkable way to try to destroy the NUM by offering a £ billion investment programme, a massive pay increase, a guarantee of no compulsory redundancies and the best early retirement provisions of any industry in the country. The person who has done most damage to the coal industry is the leader of the NUM. He has conducted a campaign that has divided mining communities and the union from top to bottom, with an

£8,000 loss of wages for every miner, and destroyed markets for the industry. History will show that no one has done more damage to the miners than Mr. Scargill. The tragedy is that throughout the dispute the Labour party has apparently given him every support.

Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Secretary of State return to the crucial issue of the debate rather than rehashing his old speeches? Does he admit that the agendas to which he referred required a written agreement? If not, is he now saying that negotiations can take place without a written agreement and that everything can be discussed without preconditions?

Mr. Walker: Last week the TUC approached the NCB to try to get negotiations started. In the first instance, the NCB said that if the TUC could persuade the NUM to come forward with the wording for an agenda that would include discussions on the crucial issue of the dispute it would carefully consider those proposals. The TUC, however, had to come back and say that it could not get any such proposal for an agenda in writing from the NUM. The NCB then put into writing its suggestion for the item on the agenda to deal with that problem. The NCB has heard nothing from the TUC since, but so far as we know the NUM has not agreed that that should be the No. 1 item on the agenda. That is why no talks took place last week.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: I am sure that the Secretary of State does not wish to deceive the House. I was present at the meeting with the TUC. The right hon. Gentleman's resumé is quite different from what actually happened. The question at issue was that of economic pits. The NUM said that it would meet without preconditions and it has set an agenda, with which I shall deal in winding up the debate.

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that there was an opportunity to have the crucial issue of the dispute on the agenda but that the NUM refused. He has confirmed exactly what I said. That shows that the Opposition's attitude is utterly bogus. Throughout last week, the NCB and the TUC patiently tried to get talks started again but the NUM refused, as it has done since last March, to move an inch on the fundamental issue of the strike. Until it does so, there can be no settlement.

Mr. Kinnock: A week ago last Thursday, when the NUM national executive committee was meeting, the NCB issued a press statement saying that it required undertakings in writing. That changed the whole course of events the week before last, as everyone clearly recalls. Is the Secretary of State now saying that during the discussions between the NCB and the TUC last week the NCB at any time conveyed to the TUC that it was withdrawing the request, requirement or demand for a written undertaking about uneconomic pits or anything else? If that is so, the news was certainly not received by the TUC or anyone else.

Mr. Walker: It was certainly received by the TUC because the TUC received an item which, if the NUM agreed to it as the No. 1 item on the agenda — [Interruption.] Hon. Members cannot dodge this. Last week the NCB made an offer that something should be the No. 1 item on the agenda. The NUM, as always, said no and will probably continue to say no. If the NUM continues to say no on that issue, there can be no


agreement because, as the whole House knows and as the Leader of the Opposition belatedly admitted last week, the reality is that pits always have been closed for economic reasons.
The whole purpose of this battle has been to have an issue upon which there could be no settlement. That is the issue that Mr. Scargill has kept to the fore throughout the dispute. The reality is that as a result the mining industry has lost considerable markets. Pit faces have been lost at pits that had a good future, and £700 million of investment that could have gone into the industry last year has not been able to go into the industry due to the dispute. What is now on offer is a programme for the coal industry that is better than anything that has been offered since nationalisation.
I should like to say a word, too, about the alternative of keeping a pit open when it is very uneconomic, in order to keep to the Scargill demand that the pit remains open until the last tonne of coal is extracted, a demand that he has repeated at rally after rally and meeting after meeting. If anybody believes that that provides a good future for mining communities, every miner knows that he is wrong. That is why, during 11 years of Labour Government, 330 pits were closed by Labour Governments. If we closed pits at the rate the Labour Government closed them, there would be no pits left in five years. In reality, during the whole of the strike there has been on offer an investment programme and, for the first time, a positive programme for communities that have to face pit closure.
In its amendment, the alliance suggests that more money should be put into the enterprise company to assist mining communities that face pit closure. That is the first time that the coal board has created such an instrument. When it originally financed it, it found that the number of potential inquiries was encouraging and felt that it would quickly get through its initial capital. The capital was then doubled to £10 million. At the time of making that announcement, the NCB made it clear that when further resources were required, they would become available. The company has now appointed a chairman and a chief executive and is dealing with many inquiries already. I assure the leader of the Social Democratic party, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), that there will be no lack of financial and management support for the enterprise company to see that a much better, more positive approach to the problem is made as opposed to the absurd approach of saying that every uneconomic pit should not close.
Therefore, I wish to say to the House that throughout the past 10 months we have had a miners' leader who, in seven negotiations, has made only one boast—that he has not moved an inch. He has rejected a decent proposal put forward by ACAS. He has rejected, and will not accept, the proposal negotiated by NACODS. As a result of his action, miners' families, mining communities and the future of the industry have been put in jeopardy, and the tragedy of the dispute is that the Labour party leadership has never had the guts to say so. We saw the way in which its party conference was dominated by Mr. Scargill. We have seen the way in which the Leader of the Opposition has always refused to demand that a ballot take place. We have seen the actions of the spokesman for energy—the right hon. Member for Salford, East—and the only reason why he could never be successful in any

of his talks was that he could never budge Arthur Scargill an inch. The sooner there is a negotiated settlement on the best terms since nationalisation, the better for the industry and the better for miners.

Mr. Roy Mason: The Secretary of State for Energy completely misled the House during his speech. I have before me a copy of the letter from the National Union of Mineworkers, signed by Peter Heathfield, the general secretary, and sent to Mr. Spanton on Friday morning last week. Proposals were put forward for negotiations as required by the board. The second proposal was about the future of collieries and units. The letter states:
The Union's proposal takes account of the Board's own suggestions when we met with ACAS. This would provide for all matters relating to the future of Collieries/Units to be dealt with".
In the concluding paragraphs of the letter, Mr. Heathfield stated:
I find your refusal to resume negotiations without preconditions extremely disappointing. Should the Board change its mind, however, and decide that it does want to see a settlement of this dispute, I reiterate that the Union's National Executive Committee is available for talks at any time.
That is the present situation. The Secretary of State misled the House about the negotiations.
I believe that the strike is a Government-inspired, political strike, and since the start has been the subject of intensive Government political activity. The House will remember that in October 1983 the NUM decided on an overtime ban, when one third of its men were to be adversely affected by reduced earnings. The overtime ban had major objectives — to save the pits, pay decent wages and employ more people by cutting out overtime. After 17 weeks, the NCB had lost 6·5 million tonnes of production — a loss of sales equivalent, at only £30 a tonne, to nearly £200 million. Therefore, the overtime ban was biting. The industry was still working, and not many miners were suffering, and that was galling to the NCB.
That was when MacGregor decided to announce a cutback of 4 million tonnes of coal output in March 1984, threatening the life of 20 pits and 20,000 jobs. At the time there were 50 million tonnes of coal in stock. With those massive bastions of reserves behind them, the Government decided to take on the miners. If that was not the reasoning, why did not MacGregor cut back on coal imports and opencast coal mining? He could easily have brought supply into line with demand by those means. We import 5 million tonnes of coal, and opencast production is 15 million tonnes. There was no need for a confrontation, but the NCB and the Government wished and willed it.
The board and the Government, especially the Department of Energy, would have been in cahoots from the start. Moves of this kind and magnitude are not made without officials being involved and Ministers being informed. Therefore, I believe that there was political involvement from the start. MacGregor could have avoided the strike, but did he really want to? The Government were fully aware of what was happening. If they wanted to take on the miners, to wreak revenge for 1974 and to blunt the spearhead of the most progressive united industrial union in Britain, now was the time. By so doing, they could tame the whole trade union movement in Britain.
That is the Government's political goal. With a massive majority in Parliament and noting that they had secured an increased white collar union vote in 1983, the Government thought that they had better strike while the going was good. It had not gone unnoticed that it took MacGregor 13 weeks to bring the steel workers to heel. He always regarded the steel unions with contempt. He saw them as a disparate multiplicity of steel unions lacking the pronounced progressive leadership of the NUM. Therefore, the Government recognised that the battle against the miners, the strongest, most coherent union in the country, might take more time. Well, it has. It has taken longer than anticipated and has been much more costly than the Government thought it would be.
The Government and the NCB chose the time, with ample parliamentary Sessions left in which to do the job. But they never realised what a political and diplomatic disaster MacGregor would be, and that their whole strategy would face ruin because of the ultimate in public relations stupidity by their appointee. After the faltering and stammering television appearances by the NCB's new spokesman, and seeing the NCB's industrial relations department collapsing in ruins with so many men steeped in industrial relations experience sacked or opting for premature retirement, the Government then decided to take over the reins completely. There is now no doubt about the dominating role of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Energy in this dispute.
They have made it clear that this is a fight to the death, irrespective of cost. The Prime Minister's reputation was at stake, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said, this is her national Falklands crisis. All the Cabinet has come to heel — anti-miners to a man. While there are wets, renegers and rebellions on Third world aid, students' grants, abolition of the GLC or monetarism versus unemployment, there are no splits on this issue. This is a Government-decreed highly politically motivated strike.
At no time in the last 11 months has a miner received unemployment benefit, but because of the politics of this dispute and the Government's determination to win at all costs, neither have many hundreds of workers who have been laid off as a consequence of the strike. I am referring to all outside contractors, canteen workers, apprentices and redundant coal miners. Contractors from AMCO, Thyssen, Cementation Mining, Mathew Hall and various other firms have been denied unemployment benefit, but their case for disqualification is non-existent, although they have suffered all this time. I believe that their benefit has been denied in an attempt to influence the dispute.
If the 700 contractors in Yorkshire — and there are 238 AMCO workers in the Barnsley area alone — returned to work through being denied benefit and starved back to work, that would inflate the return-to-work figures. I suspect that there has been some collusion between the Department of Employment, the DHSS and the NCB.
This is also an unnecessary extension of poverty, social distress and unhappiness among their families. These people are not coal miners and are not involved in the dispute. They work in supportive industries. They have been caught up in the strike and affected by it, yet have been no part of the cause. As long ago as 1926, it was decided that outside contractors to the mining industry were at a separate place of employment, even though they worked at the same pits as the miners. They were paid

unemployment benefit during strikes by miners. This umpire's decision was reaffirmed in 1964 in commissioner's case R(U)23/64 which also gave authority for payment. Two other cases relating to the present dispute were reaffirmed in a commissioner's decision from Wales. Therefore, there is overwhelming authority for the view that outside contractors should be paid unemployment benefit. There seems to be no reason other than bias against everyone even only remotely involved in the dispute.
None of the outside contractors, canteen workers and apprentices has yet been paid in Yorkshire. It could take up to two years and much waste of administrative time, unnecessary cost and widespread social distress before every case is dealt with. That is indefensible and is absolutely unnecessary. Only a political decision can rectify it.
The same applies to redundant, now unemployed, coal miners. These men were actually declared redundant before 6 March 1984. They have played no part in the strike. They are on the dole, and were before the strike began. They are not involved in the dispute in any way, yet for 11 months they have been cruelly deprived of unemployment benefit. Again, this is an unnecessary extension of social distress and misery in the mining communities. It gives an impression to everyone in every pit village in Britain that the Government are purposely depriving these men of their benefit and are forcing the NUM in every coalfield to contest every case before tribunals. It adds credence to the overall view that the Government have told the officers of those tribunals to bend the interpretation of the law against those who are pleading for justice.
The denial of unemployment benefit to redundant miners has been grossly unfair from the start. That benefit should now be paid. These men have been callously denied their rights, as a result of which much poverty has been needlessly caused. This is another cruel example of the Government's policy of determining the level of social misery in the strike-torn areas.
Over the last 11 months, a number of men have been arrested for being involved in picket-line incidents. Scores of them, having been charged by the police, have eventually been acquitted. In the meantime, they have been photographed and fingerprinted, and those stains on their character have been kept on police files. The Home Secretary knows that on 10 December last year, I presented the case to him. On 28 December he sent me an interim reply stating that he would ask the chief constable of Nottinghamshire for a report. Last Thursday I again asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman for an assurance that everyone acquitted of offences — the Attorney-General has said that today there are 1,169— would have their records cleansed, including the erasure of all fingerprints and photographs from their records.
I asked for that assurance last Thursday on the Floor of the House, but it was not given. Is that not political? Is it not political that wives and families should be tormented and that the men themselves should be besmirched with guilt for all that time, even though they have been declared innocent? It is up to the Home Secretary to request chief constables to send for the men concerned so that they can witness the erasure of photographs and fingerprints from their records.
In addition, these men must not have their jobs put at risk or their future impaired when the strike is over. If there is to be an amnesty, and there will have to be, they must be considered.
At the beginning of my speech I referred to the talks. Last Friday, on 1 February, the secretary of the NUM, Mr. Peter Heathfield, said of the future of collieries and units:
The Union's proposal takes account of the Board's own suggestions when we met with ACAS. This would provide for all matters relating to the future of Collieries/Units to be dealt with".
One cannot get a wider interpretation of that to deal with the future of pits, irrespective of what they are or how they are defined. The letter continued:
I find your refusal to resume negotiations without preconditions extremely disappointing".
The Times of the following day stated:
For the first time since talks began last spring the Board yesterday admitted that it had broken off the discussions and it laid down terms for any resumption of negotiations".
The phrase, "the board yesterday admitted for the first time" is another clear sign that since last November, when MacGregor got lost in his plastic bag, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Energy have now taken over. They are determining the words which come from the NCB and the conditions on which negotiations will take place.
To meet with no preconditions seems fair and reasonable to all fair-thinking people, but not to the Government and the NCB. They now want a surrender document before talks can begin. This is political interference at the highest level. The Government are now refusing to talk, and, irrespective of the cost to the nation or the misery to thousands of miners and their families, they want to see the men, frustrated and bitter, starved back to work. That is the Government's political goal. What of industrial relations thereafter? The Government could not care a damn. That is another reason why the dispute is political, and has been for the Government since it began. Even Peter McNestry, the general secretary of NACODS, while representing middle management of the mining industry, declared on 26 January 1985:
It has become a political strike. It is clear now that she is involved in running the Coal Board's business. She countermanded an arrangement between senior Director Ned Smith and the NUM. She has total involvement and she's out to destroy the NUM.
They too believe, without a shadow of doubt, that it is a Government-motivated political strike.
What about the cost of the strike? Last week the Prime Minister refused to answer my question about the cost to Government Departments and nationalised industries, and fobbed it on to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who referred to a reply that was four months out of date. It is now revealed that the stoppage is estimated to have cost £5·2 billion. The cost to the coal industry so far is estimated at £952 million. The bill for the electricity industry is £719 million. It is calculated that about £271 million has been lost in income tax payments and that a further £47 million has been lost in social security costs. The cost of extra policing is estimated at £189 million, and the loss to the British Steel Corporation at approximately £190 million. The cost of the balance of payments, which has risen to £347 million a month, hurts the Government most. The cumulative cost is running at about £2·5 billion. That is because of the additional imports of oil and coal.
The Government and the country are paying an extremely heavy price for this war of attrition. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his famous remark that the costs of the strike were a worthwhile investment for the nation — another fine example of the Government's intentions—the stoppage was only five months old. It has now dragged on for more than 11 months. Privately, officials and civil servants are conceding that the Government's borrowing in 1984–85 is likely to burst through their set target. That has already dented the Chancellor's strategy, which means that it has eroded a considerable chunk of the cash that he was banking on for tax cuts in the Budget. That was the reason for his hesitancy in his speech last week during the debate on the economy. The falling pound, in which the strike is a major factor, has also put the Government's inflation objective increasingly at risk, not to mention the unquantifiable effects on business confidence, investment plans and expansion in businesses, most of which will never be recouped.
Never before has so much been lost and so much placed at risk in industry and commerce to stifle and eventually to cripple the strength of the miners and trade unionism in Britain. The union has offered to talk with no preconditions. Throughout the nation that will be seen to be fair and just. It is only because the Government and their puppet MacGregor have decreed that this is a political fight to slay trade unionism and trade union rights that the strike has not been settled. The Government have sown bitterness in the land, and in reaping it there will be more militancy.
Most of my people do not want to see that, but the politics of the Government is forcing them to rethink their industrial and political postures, which will be to the severe detriment of all our industrial relations and democratic procedures. Democracy will count for naught, and dictatorship versus anarchy will start to prevail. That may be the price we have to pay for the Government's political strike.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Since I was elected to the House, I have learned that one cannot repeat anything too often. During previous debates in November 1983 and June 1984, I said that it was an honour to be the Member of Parliament for Britain's largest mining constituency—Sherwood. Today I feel humble but full of pride to be the hon. Member whose constituents have been to hell and back a hundred times, indeed a thousand times, because they believe in democracy, in the form of holding a ballot.
What Lord Stockton said about miners during his maiden speech in another place described Nottinghamshire men to a tee. They are honourable, working men who put their jobs, families and country before anyone's political dogma. They are lackeys of no one, and are working today because they considered that the National Coal Board's offer was a fair and reasonable package.
The House is aware of the catalogue of cowardly, brutish attacks on working miners, but the scum also attack their wives and children when those miners are underground. Many from outside Nottinghamshire have had to seek refuge, and they have settled happily in our mining villages of Sherwood. Their protection and ours


has been made possible only by the positive actions taken by the chief constable of Nottinghamshire and his men, who stopped the thuggery in its tracks.
Nottinghamshire holds no truck with the allegations against its police. We do not need a committee set up by the National Council for Civil Liberties—the Huckfields of the European Parliament—or a call for an inquiry from our mangled-minded, Left-wing colleagues in this House. We live there and see the dawn unfold every day for ourselves.
Scargill, after lying through his teeth for 11 months about winning the strike, is now bragging that he has cost the country £5,000 million. He should read his history books and pay heed to the fate of his predecessors who also tried to hold the country to ransom. The only difference between Scargill's stormtroopers and his Nazi counter-parts is that his wear steel over their toes by courtesy of the board, instead of on their heads—all the better for putting the boot in.
During the past months, inquiring people have asked how such a great union, known for its democracy, solidarity and fraternity, could be hijacked by those whose only interest was certainly not that of their members. Mining is physically exhausting work, and men who have completed their shift underground are only too ready to go home. But those who were part of a programmed conspiracy to run the union were like rugby players who fall foul of the referee—they have an early bath so that they are ready to go into a conclave to plan their next move of destruction. That position no longer exists in Nottinghamshire, because once the sheep's clothing was removed from their former leaders, the working miners could see whose interests were being served, and when democratic elections were held, the wolves were, without exception, shown the door.

Mr. Nellist: The hon. Gentleman has referred several times to the hijacking of the NUM. Will he comment on the direct role played by Mr. David Hart, a close adviser to the Prime Minister, who on four occasions in August met miners in Nottinghamshire to set up the NUM's so-called national working miners' committee? If the hon. Gentleman is interested in a hijacking of the union, it has been a Conservative hijacking of the miners in Nottinghamshire.

Mr. Stewart: That intervention is not worthy of comment, because I would not be allowed to use the words necessary to describe it in the House.
The new leaders are now responding to their members' wishes, and covet favours from no one, except to be allowed to participate in running the industry for the well-being of their members and the country. Whatever the settlement, the success of the coal industry will not be found in Hobart house, or from those who shout loudest in the House. It rests with the board's 10 area directors and 180 pit managers, who must be allowed to manage with the full confidence and co-operation of their work force.
Yesterday's thinking on how to resolve industrial strife has gone for good in Nottinghamshire, and what I have outlined is already taking place. There is no going back. If our model were adopted by the other coalfields, there would be no need for the intervention of third parties, whose only role would be to fudge management decisions. Talk of forming a breakaway union is utter rubbish, and has been noised abroad only by the undemocratic national

union to try once more to discredit those who would not toe the party line. The loyalty of the Nottinghamshire NUM members to their national affiliated union is total. I speak of loyalty. Does the House know what loyalty means in cash terms to every Nottinghamshire miner? It means the loss of £20 a week so that production bonuses from their efforts can be given to their colleagues in loss-making coalfields. That has continued for many years, and it represents real loyalty.
Perhaps, after working continually for 11 months, the north Nottinghamshire miners might be recognised by a visit from the chairman of the coal board. With Scargill's threat of expulsion they have prepared for the worst, and find contemptible his cry that the area executive should hold a ballot before leaving the union. A ballot, indeed — after he has denied one to his members for 11 months. Expulsion has now been postponed because, at long last, Scargill accepts that he is dealing with real men in Nottinghamshire who will not break.

Mr. Terry Patchett: The hon. Gentleman refers to bonuses and the loss of earnings. Is he aware that those bonuses were established after the Nottinghamshire miners went against the results of a national ballot?

Mr. Stewart: What of this man Scargill — [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] — who has brought misery to thousands of people, condoned violence, wrecked his union and driven 23,000 Nottinghamshire miners to withdraw their political levies from the Labour party? Will he do the honourable thing and take a fourth trip to Moscow and stay there, or will he ask his members for a vote of confidence through a ballot? The answer to both questions is no, because, in the Prime Minister's word, he is frit.
Let us forget Scargill. Let us remember only the working miners of Nottinghamshire and elsewhere. With such men, the coal industry's future is secure. We shall see coal production as we have never seen it before; a return from investment such as we have never seen before; and, therefore, wages paid such as we have never seen before. With that will come hope for the unemployed as industry takes advantage of competitive energy costs. That is no dream. It is a practical reality, and the working miners of Nottinghamshire have shown the way.

Mr. Michael McGuire: What the debate has shown so far is that the Government's hands are not clean. That is the principal reason why, after a dispute that has lasted for 11 months and impoverished many areas of the country, they have not thought fit to debate the matter.
As many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, I shall not repeat the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East——

Mr. Mason: Barnsley, Central.

Mr. McGuire: I apologise to my right hon. Friend. Since the general election there have not been many points on which to fix. We used to remember the names of constituencies. My right hon. Friend mentioned the catalogue of interference by the Government, including their overturning of long-established rights to social security benefits to put pressure on miners and to persuade them that it was their fault that their families did not receive those benefits.
Before I come to the central issue, I should say why I believe the Government's hands are not clean and why I believe that they have plotted the dispute for a long time. We warned the Government what might happen when they were contemplating appointing Mr. MacGregor as chairman of the NCB. It is odd that they appointed a man in his mid-70s when the age profile in the industry is that there are hardly any miners aged more than 58 and most top managers leave when they are 60. As my right hon. Friend said, Mr. MacGregor was appointed to help to take on the National Union of Mineworkers. He has been a disaster. Do hon. Members recall disputes in any of our great industries, nationalised or not, when the chairman of that industry did not defend his own arguments? To use a common expression, he has made such a cock-up of it that the coal board has had to use men of much inferior rank—men who are not even on the main board—to defend the NCB's case.
Time and again the Government have condemned Mr. Scargill for his obstinacy in saying that he would discuss anything except pit closures. Ministers and media spokesmen have said that Mr. Scargill's obstinacy stopped them getting round the table and settling the dispute. But that has changed. Nothing could be more fair than a trade union, which has been involved in a bitter dispute for 11 months, saying, "We will get round the table but only if there are no preconditions." The Government have seized the chance to say that they want something which no union would permit; the drawing up of an agenda before getting round the table. The Secretary of State was twisting and wriggling on this point. The NUM has said that it will talk without preconditions. It is the Government who say that there must be preconditions—something against which they railed during the past few months.
The Government have dirty hands. They want the strike to continue for the simple reason that if there are no talks, the drift back to work will continue. However, I should warn the Government that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central and others have said, NACODS is deeply worried about the Government's position and will soon seek an assurance from the coal board on this matter. It will not be made a tool of the Government. If NACODS had gone on strike in October, the dispute would have taken a different turn—better for the miners and worse for the Government. The Government must not push their luck too far. Fair-minded people believe that they are trying to screw the NUM to the floor. They are trying to destroy the union.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: And the communities and families.

Mr. McGuire: That is being done at the expense of people who have endured much for many months. Advantage will be taken of them by starvation and other methods in the hope that they will give up the struggle and go back to work.
The Government have repeatedly said that it is up to the coal board and the NUM to get together, so let them get together. Let us have an end to this strike. If they get round the table, the strike will be settled on fair and honourable terms.
Before any hon. Member starts chirping about the history of pit closures, I shall agree that they have happened. I want to tell some of the young Turks on the

Conservative Benches something. In 1957, when I was a pit secretary, we closed pits, but there were then men in the industry who were over 80. We brought in a scheme so that they could retire at 70, and then so that they could retire at 65. We then got a reasonable redundancy payment scheme. However, in those days we were trying to find the statistics to prove that unemployment had gone above the magical 500,000 total figure. In other words, unemployment was at a piffling level. There may have been areas with 3 or 6 per cent. unemployment, but the average unemployment level in the country was 2·5 per cent. Today, there is a vastly different proposition, and in some areas the unemployment level is 40 or 50 per cent.
Pits may be closed because accountants say that they should be but, with the movement of the dollar and oil prices, they may become profitable again. I remember my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central saying that at one stage three pits in his area had been on the margin, and the coal board wanted to close them, but they became profitable because of the movement in oil prices. As a result, they were kept open, and communities were kept going. With that background in mind, one can understand the reluctance of miners to say that pits can be closed if accountants think that they are worth closing.
There is now an understanding on this matter, and I urge the Government to take advantage of it. If they do not, and if, as it seems, they want to humiliate the NUM, they will be making a big mistake. They will find out that the public will not stand for it. More importantly, the union most concerned—NACODS—will not stand for it. Such behaviour will rally other trade unions as well as the public to the support of the NUM, and this dispute will become even more bitter. I urge the Government to take this chance. They should get their hands off the matter and let the NUM and NCB get round the table. If they do, I believe that we can have an honourable settlement.

Mr. David Lightbown: It may be helpful if I begin by setting out my credentials in the mining industry. I was first associated with this industry in the mid-1950s. In those days, there were 650,000 people employed in the industry and hand-cutting and loading were still taking place in most areas. Ponies were still hauling tubs. In those days, I was part of a mine mechanisation organisation, which introduced modern cutting, winding, decking and handling equipment, and this job took me to all the major coalfields in the United Kingdom.
The changes that have taken place over the past 30 years in the industry have resulted in improved productivity, safety and working conditions and earning levels for those still employed. Many hundreds of millions of pounds have been invested in the industry, but many pits have been closed, and the work force is now down to about 200,000. Although this radical change in the industry has occasionally caused local problems, they have generally been resolved by common sense and consultation until now.
The effects of this lunatic strike on the industry, the community and the individual have been disastrous—and for what? It has been to support the politically motivated leadership of the NUM, which has little regard for the industry and none for its membership. This dispute


should never have started. Indeed, it would not have started had union procedures been followed and a ballot allowed.
The dispute could have been settled on a perfectly honourable basis five months ago, with the acceptance of the NACODS agreement, but it still goes on. This is mainly due to the impossible demands of the NUM leader and a few of his Marxist friends, and some Labour Members. The temptation to prolong Mr. Scargill's torment is almost irresistible, as a price that he should pay for the violence and damage that he has encouraged rent-a-mob to wreak on the individuals, communities and industry that he purports to represent.
The dispute still needs to be resolved in the interests of the industry and the vast majority of decent, honest miners — miners such as those living in my county and constituency, who have continued to work throughout the dispute despite the intimidation, and those miners who continue to stay out because of intimidation. It is more desirable that we have a negotiated settlement, but if that is not to be, then we must ask the NCB to hold out to the bitter end. There can be no concessions on the issue of who manages the industry, and we must maintain the historic consultation and closure procedures that have always existed in the industry, so that pits can be closed on grounds of economy as well as safety and exhaustion.
There can be no concessions to those who have been found guilty of sabotage, and of violence towards the individual, who have already been dismissed from the industry. However, the odd mistake may have occurred and an independent body such as ACAS may be helpful to both sides in solving this aspect of the dispute.
The coal board should increase its funding for the new enterprise company, which will provide finance, advice and accommodation for new businesses in any mining community adversely affected by closure. This was done by the British Steel Corporation when its closure programme went through. Although some said that that programme would desecrate whole communities, it has not. One has only to look at the progress made in towns such as Corby to realise that.
The NACODS offer is still on the table. If an offer based on that plus the additional suggestions that I have made proves still to be unacceptable to the leadership of the NUM, the dispute can be resolved only by the men in the industry. They will need to settle it by returning to work and purging their Marxist leadership. It is also important that the more sensible Labour Members, who have made genuine efforts to help rather than hinder the resolution of this appalling strike, should come off the fence and tell the divided work force that loyalty and solidarity are acceptable only if its leadership is right and its cause just.
I remind the House that this dispute has damaged and affected industries and individuals in the mining supply and equipment companies. Over the past 10 months, they have endured short-time working, lay-offs and redundancies. There have been no guaranteed jobs, no large lump sum payments for employees and no Govenment subsidies for their companies, some of which are now near to collapse.
This unnecessary and unconstitutional strike has damaged the economy, damaged allied industries, damaged communities and divided families. Above all, it has done permanent damage to the industry itself. The lasting geological and mechanical failures now occurring

on a day-to-day basis will ensure that some coal faces and even whole pits are never worked again. The events at the Frances and Seafield collieries, announced today, are but two examples. If there is not an early return to work there will be no jobs available in the industry.
I pay tribute to and thank those people associated with ensuring the safety and the rights of my constituents and those of a like mind. Their actions have enabled them to get to their places of work when the picket violence has been at its worst. I commend especially the men of the Staffordshire police force and those policemen brought into the county on secondment to assist in this unpleasant and arduous duty.

Mr. Michael Foot: I wish to return immediately, and I hope briefly, to the central issue of today's debate, which has already been pressed so effectively by my right hon. Friends the Members for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason); how are we to get a settlement of the dispute?
It may be that we are quite near the possibility of a settlement. A week ago, there were unofficial discussions between representatives of the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. The discussions pointed the way ahead, and both sides came away from them thinking that there was some hope. By the end of the week that hope has been dashed and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central reminded us, the NCB representatives were saying that they themselves had broken off negotiations for the first time in the dispute. Many of us might question that latter claim, because we believe that they broke off negotiations on previous occasions.
What happened during the week? A document was issued, which said that the president, the general secretary and the executive of the NUM had to sign an undertaking before they came to the negotiations. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East said, that was an intolerable demand, and it was that demand which broke the discussions. However the Secretary of State may wriggle, that is the fact.
The Government claim that that document was originally issued by the NCB and that they only supported it on television and in the other ways that they did in the last few days of last week. Whichever way it happened, it does not alter the fact that it was the issue of that ultimatum to the NUM which broke the negotiations. It is impossible for the Government to deny that.
I have a question for the NCB and the Secretary of State for Energy. Before they decided to issue that document which wrecked the possibility of negotiations, did they consult anyone? Did they consult ACAS, for example? ACAS knows more about negotiations of this kind than the whole Cabinet rolled into one—and that is not a very big compliment. But did they consult ACAS? If they did, let them tell the country what ACAS said about the possibility of such a document being issued in such a negotiation at such a time. My guarantee is that if they had gone to ACAS and asked for advice, unofficially or in any other way, ACAS would have told them that such a demand was intolerable, especially at such a sensitive moment in the industrial dispute, and it would have told them that it would wreck the negotiations.
Let us have a clear answer. Did the Secretary of State and the NCB consult ACAS about whether that was an


advisable course? If they did not, they were acting in a way that was not in accord with their duties as a Minister and a board pretending to try to settle the dispute. Did they ask ACAS whether such a document should be issued? More particularly, did the NCB ask ACAS before issuing it? Let us have a clear answer to that, if we cannot have clear answers to other questions.
It may be that the board consulted the spokesmen of NACODS on the matter. That would have been a sensible course. The board has an agreement with one union in the industry, which it claims throughout the country is a very good agreement. If the board was really trying to make an agreement with another union and it wondered how the two might affect each other, surely it would have been sensible to ask NACODS, even unofficially, what would be the effect of issuing such a document? If the board had done that, we know what the answer would have been. If it had gone to NACODS, with which the board had signed an agreement, NACODS would have told the board immediately not to do anything so foolish because it would wreck the negotiations.
The truth is that the Government and the NCB together wrecked the negotiations last week, and the Opposition say that today's debate can re-open negotiations by the simple method of getting the Government to withdraw the document. We demand to know why the Government will not do it. Ministers may say that one of the difficulties comes from the NCB, and there are difficulties from the board, especially when it is conducted by its present chairman.
On Sunday there was a report in The Observer of what was being said not only by people in the NUM and not only by Members of Parliament representing mining constituencies but by members of the board. One of the features of this industrial dispute has been the near chaos prevailing in the NCB itself. Its members have never had a clear idea, partly because of the way Mr. MacGregor conducts the board. He does not consult people properly—even members of his own board.
On Sunday, The Observer discussed what was wrecking the negotiations, and it mentioned the possibility of their being re-opened. Having stated the position, The Observer report ended:
Many senior managers in the Coal Board continue to advise a conciliatory attitude in talks, fearing that a disorganised end to the strike would have serious long-term consequences for the industry.
All of us who know the industry, as we in South Wales do, for example, could give the names of the people in the NCB who are associated with the management and who take that view. The Observer concluded:
Their advice is receiving little response from Mr. Ian Macgregor, the board Chairman.
So there are those in the NCB who say, "Let us have a conciliatory attitude" — which, of course, would mean withdrawing the ultimatum. Apparently, they are saying it in vain. Some of us are not surprised about that.
It appears that Mr. MacGregor has been taking advice from some very strange people. Who employs Mr. David Hart, for example? Is he paid by the NCB? Is he paid by Conservative Central Office? Possibly he is paid by The Times. The Opposition would like to know who pays him, because apparently he has been advising all three to call

off any negotiations and to wreck any negotiations which may start, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East underlined.
We want to know from the Government whether they will now override Mr. MacGregor if he again insists on the document which is the obstacle to negotiations.
We could go back over the past discussion of the strike. It is a very different story from the one given by the Secretary of State. There is a very different account of what happened at the beginning at Cortonwood and at the time of the earlier closures, especially in the light of the way that the Prime Minister goes up and down the country parroting the suggestion that the sole cause of the dispute is an insistence by the NUM that there shall be no closures on economic grounds. That is not the case. The Minister shakes his head. He has discovered his head, if not his voice, when dealing with my questions. The NUM made a statement in the middle of last week which was examined by the labour editor of The Times, who is not always favourable to the NUM. The article said:
Mr. Scargill was adamant that his 'peace plan' was the basis for negotiations to end the strike. His letter two days ago proposed: A review of the Plan for Coal 1974. The board has offered that.
The second proposal was the issue on which talks partly broke down before the Government and the NCB issued the document. It was, according to The Times:
Reversion to the pre-March 6, 1984, colliery review procedure.
That is what the NUM insisted on. By doing that, it was merely upholding what had prevailed before. The article continued:
The board says that cannot be accepted because it does not contain any reference to the economics of the collieries.
The NCB is refusing to accept proposals by the NUM for the maintenance of the pre-6 March position. Going deeper into the dispute, one discovers that it is what happened on 6 March that changed everything. How many times have we had to listen to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Energy going through all their rigmarole about how many pits were closed under the previous procedures? These are the previous procedures—which the Government tore up.
The tale was rather different in the early days of the dispute. The Government were not intervening then, were they? How many months did we have to listen to the tale of combined fraud and deceit from Ministers that they were not intervening? If they had intervened, the dispute could have been stopped before it started. Many of us have claimed that if the Department of Employment had not been shut down by the Prime Minister, it would have known before 6 March that such proposals would cause a strike. For months the Government said that they were not intervening. They said that they were leaving it all to the Coal Board. Are they intervening now or are they not? Which is it this week? Perhaps they are doing a bit of both — not intervening on Monday and Tuesday but intervening on Friday and Saturday. That is what it looks like from how, last week, the Prime Minister's claque was sent in to destroy any chance of a decent, honourable agreement.
The House is telling the Government that it demands that decent and honourable negotiations be started. That means the withdrawal of the document which was issued last week. Negotiations can then start. The House and the country need people not to stand up to Arthur Scargill, as


Conservative Members so often shriek, but to stand up to the Prime Minister and tell her that we shall not have matters settled by her dictation.

Mr. Jim Lester: I agree with part of the final statement made by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). There should be honourable and decent negotiations on an agenda that deals with the causes of the dispute and the reasons behind our having 11 months of misery.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said, there are no winners in the dispute. Those who talk about victory and defeat do not understand the serious consequences of events during the past 11 months. I have tried hard to enable sensible people to meet to settle the dispute and I utterly reject the caricature of a Machiavellian plot by the Government to destroy the NUM and the mining industry, as suggested by the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason). If there were such a planned attack, the leader of the NUM would have had no hesitation in calling a ballot on 8 March. If such a plot had been so obvious, the leader of the NUM would have secured a majority. If the plot was so obvious, why did the Nottingham area, which was ballotted, reject that interpretation by a majority of 75 per cent.? Moreover, there were two national ballots on pit closures.
Today's debate was not intended to raise the political temperature or to continue negotiations by the media, which have bedevilled the dispute. The last thing that we required was a word-by-word and nuance-by-nuance examination by the media. We have an industrial problem in traditional industries, especially extracting industries.

Mr. Eric S. Heller: With regard to the Government's long-standing policy, has the hon. Gentleman not heard of the Ridley report of 1978, which was leaked to The Economist? It revealed the strategy that the Government later adopted against the miners. The whole thing was laid out in that report. It is clear that even before the Conservatives got into office they were preparing plans to attack the NUM.

Mr. Lester: It all depends on how the Ridley report is interpreted. I interpret it as a means of preventing might from being right in an industrial dispute. Mr. Scargill perfected that strategy at the Saltley cokeworks, to which he often refers, where he used mass picketing to force the Government to give way through pressure and blackmail. He chose not to argue a reasoned case.
The level of production has varied from a peak of 270 million tonnes in 1914 to levels set under "Plan for Coal", because production must relate to the market and what we can use. Moreover, most Opposition Members who have worked down the pits know that when a pit is sunk, its life can be calculated to within five or six years.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I am a geologist and have been involved in the mining industry. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not possible to predict the life of any colliery as he has suggested. Its life can depend on circumstances that change from day to day, such as strange geological conditions. The NUM has never resisted colliery closures when the winning of coal is difficult or likely to cause danger to its members.

Mr. Lester: I entirely accept that geological conditions can change. However, the hon. Gentleman must accept

that before anyone makes a massive investment, as we did in Nottinghamshire at Cotgrave, there is a great deal of drilling and the extent of the coal reserves are assessed. Cotgrave pit is expected to last about 65 years.
We must consider the end of the life of older pits. There are plenty in Nottinghamshire and we have been through that procedure enough times. In the last years of a pit there are high production costs, unacceptably difficult conditions for miners and a real risk of additional subsidence and associated costs.
We have already been through this procedure. When we last looked at the future of one of the uneconomic pits in my area, the cost of working the two faces proved to be unacceptable in terms of working conditions for the men and subsidence problems for the community. The bill has increased. The losses made at that pit mean that other pits in the area have had to carry it. It has been producing coal that is not required. There is a logic to the closure of uneconomic pits over and above geology and exhaustion.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Can the hon. Member comment upon allocated expenditure, in particular the allocated expenditure referred to in the article that appeared in the January edition of Accountancy? It showed in relation to Cortonwood that the equivalent of £11 per tonne would have to be transferred elsewhere if Cortonwood were closed and that if it were kept open the cost to the coal board would be £5 per tonne less than closure. Are not questions relating to allocated costs and economic pits relevant to this argument?

Mr. Lester: Yes, indeed, and we have already agreed a formula for looking at that kind of argument In my hearing the Government have offered to reopen Cortonwood and to put it through those procedures. There is also the problem of producing specialist coal that cannot be used because there is no market for it. Certain types of coal are produced that cannot be used in power stations. We have to import specialist coal for certain purposes because we do not produce that type of coal. The Government's record in terms of obtaining high production at low cost is good. There has been investment in new collieries and in new coal faces. No other Government have ever invested so heavily in the future of high production and coal faces.

Mr. Alec Woodall: The Government have not opened a new pit in the last five years.

Mr. Lester: The hon. Gentleman is not correct. The Government have approved the opening of pits in the Vale of Belvoir, and in Nottinghamshire the Government have provided most of the new investment. Only when we produce coal at less than the current national average price shall we be able to attack those markets to which the Opposition refer. The fact is that before the strike began we were exporting double the coal production that we needed to import. Many Conservative Members who have spoken in coal debates during the last 10 years have pointed to the value of the European market and how essential it is for Britain to get into it. We can get into that market only if we produce coal at an economic price.
How do we deal with the problem of high-cost production that is in excess of our needs? This strike was totally unnecessary to deal with that problem. During the miners' strike the agreement with NACODS has been reached. It has provided an opportunity for a third party


to assess the kind of problems to which the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred, the social consequences. I can think of no other industry in which management is prepared to accept a third party assessment of the facts before it reaches a final decision. Not even the Church of England is prepared to accept that kind of third party assessment before it decides to close a church in one of its parishes.
I am second to none in wanting to ensure that no community suffers because its sole employer has had to close down business. The new enterprise company is in existence to meet the needs of the few but very important communities that need help.
It is clear from the NUM proposals and from the actions of the Government that the system of redundancies and retirement could be refined to deal with the excess manpower in a perfectly reasonable way when men genuinely want to leave the industry on a voluntary basis. Having done a 31 to 35 year stint in the industry, who would deny that to those men? This could be worked out between sensible and reasonable men. However, what is so sad to Conservative Members who support the industry is the overwhelming evidence that this industrial problem has been turned into a major political dispute by the deliberate misuse of the NUM rule book.
The Nottinghamshire miners are not Tories. They will not support the Conservative party. The Nottinghamshire miners have not supported the Tory party against their national executive. They have supported their own deep instincts for democracy, for the rule book and for their union. They are very conscious of the effect that this damaging dispute has had upon their own lives, upon their own industry and upon their own union and also upon the long-term energy needs of this country.
If one looks back to what happened during the discussions on 6, 7 and 8 March, my understanding is that on 6 March the meeting with the coal board did not end in controversy. It ended with both sides agreeing to go to the Government to find out what additional investment was available to deal with this problem. However, between 6 and 8 March a variety of events occurred. By 8 March—we read it in the Sunday Telegraph and there is no reason to believe that the man who wrote the article——

Mr. Heffer: Who paid him for that?

Mr. Lester: Whether he was paid or not does not alter the fact that he recorded what happened at that meeting. What happened at that meeting was a total abuse of rule 41 and what it was drafted for. The ballot that would have legitimised the strike was not held. If a ballot had been held no Conservative Member could have argued against the strike. No Nottinghamshire miner would have balloted individually if a national ballot had been held and the call for a strike had been won. They would have come out on strike, as they have honoured totally the overtime ban that was legitimately and democratically arrived at.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I am interested to hear that if there had been a ballot Conservative Members would not have argued against the strike. Does the hon. Member recall that in 1974 the Secretary of State was going up and down the country condemning the miners, even though there had been a ballot?

Mr. Lester: We should not have argued against the result of a legitimate ballot, held nationally, and neither would the miners. What also happened on 8 March was that the executors of the funds of the NUM were changed from the original executors to Mr. McGahey and Mr. Peter Heathfield. On that day the NUM funds were moved. It is very difficult to convince any reasonable person that the NUM—or, indeed the board of GEC—could plot at that meeting the movement of those funds so successfully. Those funds moved to the Isle of Man and then to Dublin and to New York. They came back as bearer bonds to Jersey where they were put into a private aeroplane and flown to Luxembourg. Which hon. Member is going to tell me that that was done spontaneously?

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is something of an irony that the NUM has been able to move its funds freely around the world out of the reach of the courts of this land as a result of the abolition of exchange control by this Government, which the Opposition are asking to be reintroduced?

Mr. Lester: I do not expect the NUM would claim that that casts credit upon it. My point is that there was a plan to promote a political strike without using the NUM rule book. The plan was to move NUM funds because it was recognised that they might be at risk. Nobody is going to tell me that that was not well thought out long before 6 March. Nottinghamshire has continued to behave totally democratically and within the rule book. Nottinghamshire has held elections for branch official. Far from the sinister use of Mr. David Hart, whoever he might be——

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Who is he?

Mr. Lester: I have heard of him and I can tell the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that the Nottinghamshire miners I have spoken to have no connection with him, or any time for him. However, when one looks for sinister things under stones one neglects the truth. The truth is that the Nottinghamshire working miners group came into existence when Colin Clark, an elected official, went one Friday afternoon to the solicitor who had handled his house purchase and conveyance, put on his desk the NUM rule book and said, "I need some help because I am sure that what is happening is wrong." It was from that moment that the Nottinghamshire miners formed their own group and elected branch officials. The president of the NUM now acknowledges that everything the Nottinghamshire miners have done is legal and legitimate.
That was not the case when he tried to bring in rule 51 and said that no Nottinghamshire miner would ever work again. But he has since found that what was done was legal and legitimate and that is great credit to them. Far from support from secret Tory party funds or whatever, over 6,000 individual contributions were made to the working miners' committee. That does not rank with any secret fund. They are all published and all available.

Mr. Barron: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's point that the working miners' committee in Nottinghamshire has no political connections and that it was just composed of people who felt that the NUM rule book was not being operated correctly. Is the hon.
Gentleman aware that the Nottinghamshire-based working miners' committee held meetings in the Yorkshire coalfield with a Conservative Member?

Mr. Lester: I have news for the hon. Gentleman. Only last week a contingent of Yorkshire working miners, the vice-president, the secretary and representatives of several pits, had a meeting with me. I was pleased to meet them. I am pleased to meet anybody who applies to see me to talk about the future of an industry for which I have a great concern. But any suggestion that any Conservative Member has promoted anything or worked with or been consulted by anybody other than when they have been requested so to do is utterly wrong and completely without foundation.
When history comes to be written my version will be closer to the truth than some of what we have heard from Opposition Members. We need a negotiated settlement on the key issue of how to deal with surplus production in a reasonable, civilised and proper way, with a real respect for the people in the industry who have lived and worked in it, and those communities which have supported it.
The legacy with which we are currently involved is one of deep distrust at every level of the industry. The only way in which we shall start to deal with that deep distrust is if we have a clean and honourable end to the strike so that people can get back to refashioning a vital industry in the modern way that it deserves.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) has pointed out some home truths to the House about this debate and for that reason we should welcome the opportunity that it gives us to do just that. We regret the fact that although the dispute has been going on for almost a year now the House has had only two opportunities to debate it, despite its importance and the impact that it is having on the country. Time in the House is allocated by the Government and the Labour party and they have not chosen to debate this vital topic and to provide what should be the national forum for such debates with an opportunity to discuss the matter properly.
There is no doubt that the dispute is a tragedy for Britain. It is a personal tragedy for those who are directly involved and whose families are suffering the hardship of not having an income and who are without the means to keep body and soul together for so long. It is a tragedy for the nation because Britain's economy has been adversely affected by the dispute and therefore industry and our personal lives have suffered. Thirdly, it is a tragedy for the coal industry because a potentially great industry, which could have been of enormous service to Britain over the past year, has been substantially damaged by the dispute, and it will take many years for the industry and all its ancillary parts to recover.
I was pleased to hear what the Secretary of State said this afternoon about the recent boost to NCB Enterprises Ltd, both by the appointment of staff and additional resources. We on these Benches welcome what he said. We noted with satisfaction the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking that more funds would be forthcoming for NCB Enterprises Ltd. if they were needed.
However, it has taken the Government a great deal of time to recognise the need for the establishment of NCB Enterprises Ltd. My right hon. Friend the leader of the Social Democratic party proposed the establishment of

that body back in March. It took the Government until August to establish it and it took them until now to start taking it seriously and to provide the resources for it to do the job properly. The Government must bear responsibility not just for that but for providing a background against which Mr. Scargill and his friends in the NUM could thrive and bring the dispute to the point that they have.
The Government have not handled the situation well. Against a background of 4 million people unemployed, the rundown of industry and some mishandling of negotiations during the dispute, they have played into Mr. Scargill's hands by providing him with fertile ground on which to plough his furrow and obtain the support of Britain's mineworkers. The Government must bear some of the responsibility for the state of affairs during the past nine months and for the present difficulties.
But that does not excuse what the NUM and its leadership have been doing during the dispute, and, indeed, the way in which it was brought about. There was no ballot at the start of the dispute as there should have been if the traditions and rules of the NUM had been properly followed. What the hon. Member for Broxtowe said about balloting is right. The country and the mineworkers would have felt that the dispute had been legitimised if there had been a ballot in favour of the dispute. The lack of a ballot undermined the dispute's credibility from the start. It is a great sadness that no Labour Member has been prepared to come out and be forthright in saying that since the dispute began.
There is no doubt that that happened because the leadership of the NUM had political objectives in starting the dispute and in pursuing it as vigorously as it has during the past nine months. Sadly, that still applies today because the NUM's leadership has used its membership as the infantry in its political battle, which is unjustified and unforgiveable.
What does "without preconditions" mean when the NUM's president said on the radio this morning that the NUM would not be party to an agreement that accepted pit closures on economic grounds? It is nonsense for that camouflage to be draped across our screens and to be given to the press when the NUM's president today and in correspondence makes it clear that he is still not prepared seriously to discuss economic pit closures.

Mr. Richard Holt: rose——

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I shall not give way because I must finish quickly to allow other hon. Members to speak.
It is right that negotiations should not start again while the NUM is not prepared to accept that the central issue in the dispute is not on the table for serious discussion.

Mr. Holt: rose——

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I want to be brief.
I hope that the miners will see what is happening to their industry and what is happening in the leadership of their union, and I hope that they will understand that it is not in their interests to continue the dispute on the present terms and under the present circumstances — [Interruption.] The industry has a great future but the miners — [Interruption.] — will understand that their interests are not being served by continuing the strike. Therefore, it is hoped that they will return to work in increasing numbers so that the great future that the industry has can be realised.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Stop waffling. What advice does the hon. Gentleman give to the miners in Fife?

Mr. Wrigglesworth: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, he will have an opportunity to do so later.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) to make so much noise that I cannot hear what the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) is saying?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Many hon. Members are anxious to catch my eye. Interruptions only prevent people from speaking.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I am anxious that other hon. Members, such as those who have been bawling at me from the Labour Benches, should have an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wrigglesworth: If the hon. Gentleman would resume his seat and behave in the way that one expects an hon. Member to behave, we could proceed with the debate.
It is in the interests of the miners that they should return to work to ensure that the great future that the industry could have is realised. We very much hope that——

Mr. Douglas: That they will crawl back.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: We hope that pressure will build up on the leadership of the NUM so that they are prepared——

Mr. Douglas: Prepared to crawl back.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: So that they are prepared to accept that the closure of uneconomic pits can be put on the agenda. When 80 per cent. of the losses of the NCB come from 10 per cent. of the pits, we do not need to study the facts for long to realise that something must be done.

Mr. Bob Clay: So the hon. Gentleman favours closing the pits in Durham? Why does he not say that in Durham?

Mr. Wrigglesworth: A lot of people from Durham will be listening to this and they will see what good sense there is in it.
Many people in the mining industry have fears about their jobs. We recognise that, but it is not in the interests of miners who have worries about the future to continue the dispute. They have been given guarantees that jobs will be on offer to them despite any closures that take place. In those circumstances, it is in their interests to go back to work and to allow discussions to take place on the closure of uneconomic pits so that the dispute can be brought to an end and the potential great future of the industry can be realised.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that the 10-minute limit now comes into operation. No injury time is added for interventions.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friends have demonstrated beyond

question their respect for the mining industry and miners and, in particular, their respect for Nottinghamshire miners.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) said, we did not assume that the Nottinghamshire miners supported Government policies. They have been seeking to protect the integrity of their union. That has been their prime motivation and I am sure that, when the strike is over, they will be the first to want to put their union back together again, in the hope that they will find leadership that will represent their interests and not use them as political cannon fodder.
It is surely not in dispute that the strike has been a political strike. The prime aim of the miners' leader has been spelt out time and again. He said in February 1983:
Capitalism is an obscence system which deserves to be overthrown.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful for that response by Labour Members. It illustrates more clearly than anything else what the strike is about.
Mr. Scargill continued:
It must be overthrown before it disintegrates into a Fascist dictatorship.
What a nerve. Can there ever have been, since the dark days of pre-1939, a more odious example of the Fascist approach—and spelt out in advance, just as in "Mein Kampf"? But that is what Scargillism has become in these last months.
Demands have been formulated in terms that could not be fulfilled, but that was no accident. It was not a corner into which circumstances forced an unwilling NUM leadership. That is the Trotskyist style of negotiation: to ensure the maximum damage and frustration among the gullible, en route to insurrection.
Mr. Jimmy Reid is not exactly a friend of the Conservative party. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is no friend of ours either."] Apparently, he is no longer a friend of the Labour party. He said on television:
I recoil in horror at the scenes of a miner's home daubed `Scab' and into my mind flood visions of Jewish homes defaced in Hitler's Germany.
All the more reason why I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is not here and all the more reason why I felt a sense of sadness that he who, of all people, should have known better, has acquiesced in these acts of violence and accusations against the police.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is not true.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I have to say——

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: No.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you use your position to ask the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) to withdraw a statement which is patently untrue and a misrepresentation of the truth?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) is responsible for his own speech. He must decide, in the light of what is said, whether to withdraw any statement.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman made a personal attack on my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I cannot withdraw those remarks, because I have felt a sense of personal shame, as a co-religionist of the right hon. Member for Gorton, at his attitude over the past months. That is why I feel that I can stand up and say what I have said.
I have made those comments because back in April, when we discussed the strike for the first time—though we were primarily concerned with the actions of the police —the right hon. Member for Gorton put a large red folder on the Opposition Dispatch Box.

Ms. Clare Short: Red? Disgraceful!

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: You are a silly woman.
That heavy folder contained nothing but hearsay comments about problems on the picket lines. I know that to be a fact. The only reason why it was placed on the Dispatch Box was to give some spurious evidence of cases that had been laid before the right hon. Gentleman. I know that not one of those cases was laid before the chief constable of Nottingham, because every one was pure hearsay.
In all the row that has taken place, the right to work and the case for coal have been obscured by the outrageous conduct that has occurred. The right to work is a just principle, but it is not an argument for a particular job in a particular place for a miner and his children, regardless of whether the rest of the community wants or needs the product of that labour.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe implied, society must accept the social consequences, but that is a different solution from continuing to make unwanted goods or mining unwanted coal at too high a cost.
"Alice Through the Looking Glass" logic is offered as democracy by the miners' leaders. When the Nottinghamshire miners balloted on whether to strike, 27 per cent. voted for a strike and 73 per cent. voted to work. Our area went to work and fewer than 1,000 of the 31,000 miners there are still on strike.
However, striking miners now say that the majority have no right to vote their colleagues out of work. That now seems to be their argument. Of course, that is why the miners' leaders do not need a ballot any more. If they hold a ballot and obtain the majority they seek, they will be happy, but if they do not obtain that majority, they will argue that the majority has no right to put the minority's views in jeopardy.
This is a political showdown — [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—but not between this Government and miners, or working people in general. The showdown is between evil men, who now lead working people, and parliamentary democracy. It is a showdown in which both sides of the House should ensure that Parliament succeeds.

Mr. Tony Benn: Having heard the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), I can understand why the Government did not want a debate. It is now quite clear that, far from believing in the prerogative of management and in not intervening, the Secretary of State has masterminded the strike from the beginning. The

preparations were made long ago, as the Ridley report proves. The police were equipped and trained to work on picket lines. The whole strike was organised to break the NUM.
If any Conservative Member wonders why Arthur Scargill is so highly respected, he should realise that for five years—and long before he was president of the NUM — Arthur Scargill went to countless miners' meetings saying, "Mind my words, the Government have a hit list of pits." Ministers and coal board officials denied that, but miners have followed Arthur Scargill because he has stayed loyal to them. No Conservative Member or Minister has taken that factor into account. Since no other hon. Member has done so, I should like to place on record my tribute to the 130,000 miners and their families who have endured appalling hardship in the past, almost, 12 months in order to defend the industry, their jobs, and their communities. I feel great pride for them.
It is a great tragedy that, because of many secondary issues, the real question has never been allowed to be properly discussed. That question involves the link between this country's economy and coal. I am very proud to have signed the 1977 "Plan For Coal". I negotiated it with the NUM. The basis of it was that there would be a joint agreement on the industry's future. Much has been made of pit closures under the Labour Government. I am not saying that all of them were right — [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Of course I am not saying that, but when, as Secretary of State, I offered a veto to the NUM on pit closures, it represented a recognition that one cannot run the mining industry without the goodwill of the British miners. Any Government who try to convert the "enemy within" to the "enemy underground" by driving men back to work through hardship will destroy the industry and its prospects.
The NUM has never objected to pit closures when there is genuine exhaustion. I am not talking about being down to the last tonne of coal. Anyone who has had anything to do with the industry knows that generally the argument is whether a bit more investment would reveal more coal faces. The argument is not about the last tonne of coal, and to say that the NUM has said that is a blatant lie designed to deceive those who do not know the truth. If there are geological faults or dangerous conditions, the NUM insists on pit closures. It will not put its members at risk. The argument is whether the Government now have a case for closure on what are called harsh economic grounds. The plain truth is that they do not.
If a pit is denied investment, it can be turned into what is called an "uneconomic" pit, just as, if the roof of a home or a burst pipe is not mended, or if broken windows are not replaced, that home will be turned into a slum. The charge that the NUM rightly makes is that the Government have deliberately starved pits that have great reserves of coal in order to feed money into the so-called high productivity pits with the intention of selling them off when the Government get the chance. Conservative Members should not shake their heads as if to suggest privatisation was a wicked smear against the Government. This Government would sell off the royal family if they could make a quick profit.
The second argument concerns the relative costs of nuclear power and coal. As the House knows, not a single penny of equity capital has ever been put into nuclear power anywhere in the world. Not a single penny has been put into it in the United States. The United States has


cancelled 90 nuclear power stations, and has not ordered one since 1977. Nuclear power is financed for defence reasons. Therefore the argument that nuclear power is cheaper than coal is quite false.
We sell our oil from the North sea to the CEGB at three times the cost of production, because OPEC fixes the price. There is no case for saying that coal is uneconomic compared with nuclear power or oil. The social cost to the Exchequer of closure where there is no other work is twice that of keeping the pit open. SDP Members with their fake statistics come along and try to pretend that they are presenting mathematical realities that others have to face, but in doing so they are just proving that they are on the Right wing of the Tory party. I think that that is clear
Then, of course, it is said that there is no market for coal. But as coal is cheaper than nuclear power or oil, we should be converting from nuclear power and oil to coal, and providing free fuel to pensioners, who now die in their hundreds from hypothermia during the winter. Those old people cannot afford to keep warm in winter. But the miners who dig that coal could keep their jobs, save the country money and save the lives of the old.
Also, with the pound at half the value of two or three years ago, British coal is exported at half the price and British imports of energy——

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn: I shall not give way. If the hon. Gentleman had wanted a debate, he could have demanded a debate in Government time. He should listen to the arguments being put forward.
Energy imports now cost twice the price. Not for the first time in our history the NUM is defending the national interest—[Interruption.] Yes it is. When the oil runs out—and it is being depleted at a disgraceful rate—and when gas runs out, Britain will again depend on coal.
The Government have tried to bribe and starve the miners into giving up. They have put thousands of policemen on the picket lines who are trained in techniques perfected in Northern Ireland. The magistrates have abused bail conditions by taking away civil liberties without trial. The judges have sequestrated funds that the miners donated with the very aim of defending their jobs if the union was under attack. The mass media gathered up there in the Press Gallery have been pouring out propaganda against the miners. For example, when BBC television covered the Orgreave picket, it showed stones being thrown, and then cavalry charges being made by the police. I know from BBC editors who took part in that bulletin that there were three cavalry charges by the police before a single stone was thrown. But the BBC, pretending to be impartial, put out a bulletin designed to mislead the British people about the sources of violence.
Time is short, so I must be brief. There are 130,000 miners on strike. There have been some casualties—those who have gone back to work because they could not survive. But I tell the House that 90 per cent. of the miners who have ever been on strike are still on strike. As one third of miners never went on strike, it means that, even if the 51 per cent. mark was achieved, all that money and propaganda and all the police would have shifted only 16 per cent. of miners from their original view.
The cost of the strike has been enormous, but the miners have received massive support. They have received support from their communities, from women's action groups and from people and communities all over the country and the world. The public now know that what my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said is true—we are witnessing an attack on the jobs, living conditions, trade union rights and civil liberties of working people in Britain. The Government rely on cold and hunger to try to drive the miners back, but I do not believe that they will succeed. The other way to end the strike quickly is to follow the lead of the National Union of Railwaymen, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen and the National Union of Seamen and provide industrial support and further political action.
Ministers should study their history. After the 1926 general strike, the Tory Government were swept from office in the following general election. In 1974, when the present Secretary of State was making the same speeches, even though there had been a ballot, he was swept from office. The British people will never, never, never allow the Tory party to destroy the miners, their families and their communities, because, given the choice of the ballot box, they prefer the quality, decency, dedication and loyalty of the miners to the get-rich-quick people who support the Tory party and have contributed to the creation of this strike.

Mr. Peter Rost: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) conveniently forgot to tell the House that in Derbyshire the majority of miners are working, having had a ballot locally against the strike. The people of Derbyshire and the miners there cannot understand what the dispute is about and why it was started by the NUM leadership. Derbyshire miners have always accepted that the closure of pits near the end of their economic life is a necessary and normal part of the business.
Many of my constituents are disgusted at the Labour party's nauseating display of licking Arthur Scargill's jackboots. They are particularly disgusted at Labour Members representing Derbyshire constituencies, including the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, who never speak up on behalf of the majority of miners who are working. The Labour party stands condemned tonight out of its own mouth.
Time and again the Labour party has failed to condemn the picketing, the violence and the intimidation. It has failed to speak up for the working miners. It has failed to support the democratic vote and failed to support union rule books. It has failed to condemn a senseless dispute. The Labour party's only cry has been to ask the National Coal Board to surrender to Mr. Arthur Scargill's impossible demands.
The Labour party has used its influence, not to protect the miners, not to protect the union and not to protect the coal industry, but to aid and abet a disastrous conflict which is damaging the economy, preventing the modernisation of the coal industry and preventing lower energy prices.
Members of the Labour party are the guilty men. We have heard them again tonight. They have encouraged an


irresponsible NUM leadership which has cheated its own members out of earnings, cheated them out of jobs and cheated them out of a future for their industry.
Of course pits must continue to close. The Labour Government closed hundreds of them. The Labour Government even provided, under the Coal Industry Act 1977, for the closure of uneconomic pits. We must consider the cost to the nation of maintaining subsidies in the marginal, hopelessly uneconomic pits. We must reallocate resources and invest in the new pits for tomorrow to secure the energy and the jobs that we need. We must provide for more economic energy prices.
Goodness knows how many jobs have been lost over the last few years because of high energy prices. We lost whole industries because our coal was too expensive. There is a huge market for coal — it is bigger than today's—if we concentrated on producing it in the new fields where it can be mined more economically.
Coal could recapture markets that it has lost over the years if only we had a sensible expansion of the industry in the economic areas. That is what the NUM leadership is preventing, and that is what the Labour party is supporting.
If the NUM is really prepared to negotiate on economic pits, why does it not just say so? All that it has to admit is that uneconomic pits have to close. Let us get round the table and discuss how best to do it. The industry must have a right to manage. Every other industry has that right. If the industry had exercised that right in the past we should not be having a dispute now because more of the uneconomic production would have been phased out long ago and new investment would have gone ahead faster instead of being used to subsidise the loss-making pits. If that had happened, we should now have lower cost coal and secure jobs. Instead of wasting subsidies on maintaining loss-making pits, we should reallocate more of the resources into the new mines. Management must be given the right to manage.
In every other industry—private and state—workers and management have to face the facts of life to survive. It may be painful but it is accepted. Uneconomic steel plants, older power stations and remote railway lines which are uneconomic in today's circumstances have been closed. In private industry the realities of economic life have been even more harsh.
If Mr. Scargill were the leader of the engineering union, we should still be producing thousands of steam engines. If Mr. Scargill were leader of the transport union, we should probably still be running stage coaches on mud tracks. If we accepted Scargillism here, Britain would have no modern new technological industries such as aerospace and nuclear electronics and our living standards would be about as high as they are in Bulgaria.
I want to say a word about the future of the industry. When all this is over and the majority of miners have finally voted with their feet, we shall have to start to put the pieces together. There must be some fundamental changes and I hope that the Government Front Bench will take account of them. There must be genuine competition in the coal industry. There must be privatisation and better management.
We have a private sector coal industry. Why have we stifled it? We have private coal mines and mining expertise in the private sector. Why do we not encourage it? Why should the coal industry be retained as a state monopoly? There is plenty of scope for providing efficient

competition in the private sector. It is nonsense that companies such as BP should have to mine coal in Australia and elsewhere and are prohibited from using their expertise to mine coal in Britain. It is nonsense that our profitable, opencast mining industry should be deliberately stifled by the National Coal Board. Instead of encouraging more licensing, the NCB is abusing its monopoly to hold back that profitable private sector.
Why should not new reserves of coal, like oil and gas be licensed to encourage private investment for the benefit of the economy as a whole? Why should not miners have a better deal in the private sector, as every other privatised industry provides? There is plenty of scope for introducing genuine competition to the NCB. We could sell off some of the profitable pits, so that the coal board could concentrate on putting right the unprofitable pits.
Let us get on with what we have done in the other industries for the benefit of the economy, the consumer and, above all, the employees in that industry.
The nation should note the way in which the Labour party encouraged the miners to believe that they were supporting an honourable dispute, when it knew that the miners had been tricked, bullied and intimidated into supporting a lost cause. It is time that the country realised that Labour's attitude has been to wreck a once great union, and now it has the nerve to demand that the coal board surrender to impossible terms.
Even today, when the disastrous NUM leadership has been discredited and exposed for its shameful deception of its members, and when the suicidal policies of Arthur Scargill are rejected by more and more disillusioned miners, who remains to support Scargillism and all that it represents? Not the miners, not the TUC and not even any other union—just the Labour party and Her Majesty's official Opposition. Long may they remain the Opposition.

Mr. Martin Redmond: It gives me no pleasure to speak in this debate about a dispute that should not have taken place.
The Secretary of State must take full responsibility. He should have got off his backside and involved himself more openly in trying to resolve the dispute. His failure to do so shows either that he agrees with the Prime Minister's policy or that he does not have the guts to stand up for what is right.
I said recently that the Secretary of State knew nothing about industrial relations. It is now apparent that he knows even less about the coal industry. In view of the duration of the strike and the right hon. Gentleman's failure to do anything, he should do the honourable thing and resign.
The various plans for coal are not worth the paper on which they are written if there is no overall energy policy, and there can be no such policy while the Government allow short-term market forces to dictate the size of the industry. An overall energy policy based on coal must be implemented for the long-term good of the nation.
The Government and the NCB have shown that their pea-sized brains are incapable of understanding and discharging their duties. The Government, who have allowed the dispute to cost £5·5 billion, should be charged with treason, for it is obvious that they do not comprehend the figures. If not charged with treason, they should be


committed to Rampton hospital. Having worked in the industry and served on various committees, I would not trust the coal board to run a children's tea party.
As for the Cortonwood issue, when Yorkshire took the decision to strike — because the NCB refused to implement the then policies on pit closures — the Government sat on their backsides, did nothing and allowed the strike to start the following Monday.
Hickleton pit was made uneconomic some years ago, as the result of bad investment and bad management. Bentley pit, under the old ABC hit list, was to close, but as a result of the Doncaster NUM panel threatening total strike action, the then area director caused investment to be made in that pit. Meanwhile, the rest of the pits in the Doncaster area were being asked to produce the same excellent profits for the industry. That shows that, when good investment takes place, a pit—even one on the hit list—can produce a profit for the good of the industry and the local community.
I could go on at length giving examples of stupid decisions made by the coal board, but time does not permit me to deal with that aspect in depth. One can only hope that if these points are made often enough, they will penetrate even the minds of Tory Members, who may then feel able to question whether the Government are pursuing policies that are good for the nation.
It is strange that in other countries the private sector is investing in their coal industries—anticipating the future demand for coal—while the British Government would sooner import coal and see our miners on the dole, with all the consequences of deprivation and so on. It is economics gone crazy.
Comparisons have been made between Labour and Conservative Administrations closing pits. The main difference is that, under previous Labour Governments, there were alternative jobs for the miners. There is clear evidence to support the aims and objectives of the NUM.
A number of reports have been made on the method of accountancy employed by the coal board, reference has been made to the Government's stance throughout the dispute and much has been said about the social cost of it all to the mining communities. Lord Kaldor has argued a simple and overwhelming case against the Government's and the coal board's policy. Andrew Glyn has argued that the NCB's policy is wrong. Barnsley council in south Yorkshire has produced a booklet entitled, "Coal Mining and Barnsley". It is a study of employment prospects in the area, especially if the Government have their way. If the Secretary of State cannot afford to buy a copy of that booklet, I will purchase one for him.
The University of Manchester Institute of Science of Technology has argued against the misleading method of accountancy employed by the NCB, yet the Secretary of State buries his head in the sand like an ostrich. He should spend more time reading suggestions and reports which conflict with the methods employed by the NCB, especially in the light of the financial jargon that emanates from the board.
Not once have the Government argued their case on logic and truth. In reality, there is no logic or reason in their policy. If there had been, Government time would have been provided for us to debate the problems facing the mining industry. If the Government were correct in their policy—and they are not—they would argue their

case for pit closures before an independent body, which would have the final say on whether a pit should close. The Government will not do that, because they are like frightened children. They do not have the guts to argue their case before an independent panel. Their policy is a total disaster for the nation.
I have seen all the correspondence that has passed between the union and the coal board, and I can say with confidence that the NCB and the Government are pathetic in their lack of understanding of industrial relations. The letter listing five negotiating points sent by the NUM to Mr. Spanton last Friday was most reasonable. For the coal board to have refused to act in accordance with that—either on its own or at the direction of the Government—makes one question the sanity of those involved.
A bold, imaginative policy of investment in the mining industry by men with the vision to think of the future needs of the industry would receive the grateful thanks of future generations, but the present Government will stand condemned. The propaganda that has appeared in the media would no doubt warm the cockles of Goebbels' heart, because the media have distorted the truth. I hope that this debate will give the public some of the knowledge that has not yet appeared in the media.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The media cannot have distorted Mr. Scargill's position sufficiently, as he made it absolutely plain on radio this morning that he has not budged an inch. On a day when a record 2,237 men have gone back to work for the first time, I warmly welcome this debate. I have the privilege of representing many miners—

Mr. Patchett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: No, I have only just started.
I reject the description of the dispute as "the miners' strike" because my constituents care about their jobs. To their great credit, the vast majority of miners in Staffordshire are at work today. Many of my constituents work at Littleton colliery in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). That colliery is not just working virtually as normal but is back in profit. That is a great achievement.

Mr. Patchett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: I doubt whether the Leader of the Opposition welcomes this debate, as it has taken him eight months to find time for it. Despite the appearance of unanimity, this issue divides the Labour party from top to bottom. The miners have never had a better deal — significantly better than they had under the stewardship of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who was booted out at the last election. Picket line violence is losing support for the Labour party like a haemorrhage. That support is now coming to the Conservative party, certainly in my constituency.
The Leader of the Opposition knows that the real purpose of the strike is an assault on the democratic system of this country. Above all, he knows that economics must play a part in pit closures, as he said himself today and on radio last Friday morning. He had to stage this debate because he knows that the Labour party is now controlled by men who wish to introduce the tactics of the picket line into this very Chamber. If leadership is woefully lacking


among the Opposition, no such deficiency exists on the Conservative side. The leadership of the NUM has sought to challenge democracy.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: The Opposition's belief in freedom of expression is skin deep. The NUM leadership has sought to challenge democracy, to turn out the lights of Britain, to deny heat to the elderly and infirm and to paralyse the economy. The people of Britain expect the Government to be robust and to give all necesary support to the NCB in its attempt to manage the industry. I believe that the people of Britain have not been disappointed by the resolution of my right hon. and hon. Friends in supporting management's right to manage. Management was always undermined when the nation had the misfortune to be ruled by a Labour Government. Under the Conservative Government, management has been given the authority to manage, and I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on their achievement in this difficult and damaging strike.

Mr. Allen McKay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: I know that the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) is a fair man. I am sorry that I cannot give way now. Perhaps I shall have time later. I wish to make three brief points.
First, pit closures are nothing new in my constituency. In a very small geographical area, 12 pits have been closed since 1947 with the loss of 9,650 jobs, but not one day was lost in strike action as a result.

Mr. Barron: By agreement.

Mr. Howarth: Yes, those closures were by agreement, but they took place on economic grounds as well as on grounds of exhaustion.
Secondly, intimidation has been the worst since the war and has been a major feature in the campaign to stop men going back to work. Constituents are still coming to me, saying that they have been hounded out of the business by the extent of picketing, sometimes on the insistence of their wives, who could not stand it any longer. Those men have lost their jobs and have no new jobs to go to. There has been a conspiracy to organise mass picketing up and down the country. How else could there have been 6,000 men at Orgreave on one day?

Mr. Corbyn: What about mass policing?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman seems uncertain where we stand on liberty. The police are there in support of liberty, although I do not expect him to appreciate that. Only yesterday, the president of the NUM called for further mass picketing. I submit that, under section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, such acts constitute a conspiracy to organise illegal picketing throughout the country. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said that he wishes to encourage chief constables to do all in their power to find evidence of conspiracy. In that, he is supported by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. The people of Britain believe that there must be evidence of conspiracy. Without organisation, how can 6,000 men gather at the same place?

Mr. Corbyn: Or 7,000 policemen.

Mr. Howarth: I believe that the strike will soon be over. When it is over, there should be an inquiry into the way in which picketing is organised so that, if necessary, provision can be made to ensure that in the future mass intimidation of this kind is not inflicted on the working men and women of Britain.
Thirdly, my area contains one of the largest opencast pits in the country, producing about 1 million tonnes per annum. Coal has been mined at that pit for the past year, but between the end of March and the end of September there was no movement from the pit because the railwaymen and signalmen refused to move it. The strikers' friends and the destroyers of the British economy are on the Opposition Benches. That coal is now in a volatile condition and has to be moved, so it is being moved by road—with consequent effects on the road system of Staffordshire and surrounding counties.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something today about the role of the railwaymen in the dispute. I know that there are drivers willing to move coal. It is outrageous that an industry bleating for more public investment for electrification and so on is shooting itself in the head by refusing to move coal and thus losing at least £50 million per year. What kind of economics or job protection is that? If railwaymen refuse to move coal by rail, there is one remedy left to British Rail—to dismiss them for failing to fulfil their contracts of employment.
I believe that the Government have done extremely well in a difficult and damaging dispute. I believe that the people of Britain are grateful to have a Government who have resolution and who are prepared to stand up to the thugs because—let us make no mistake about it—Mr. Scargill and his formation brick-throwers have been spoiling for this fight for years. The Saltley coke depot business in 1972 was but the forerunner of it.
I believe that there should be no further concessions and that my right hon. and hon. Friends are absolutely right in supporting the coal board, and in standing firm until the NUM agrees to talk about the closure of uneconomic pits that are costing the taxpayer dearly.

Mr. Jack Dormand: I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not present—but I understand why not. The most memorable episode in the debate will be his wriggling at the Dispatch Box while attempting to answer the many probing questions asked by the Opposition not only about the content of last week's agenda for peace talks in the dispute but about the interpretation of it. Normally —I stress the word "normally" —I find the Secretary of State a forthright debater, someone who gives straight answers. I did not find that today. Therefore, I can deduce only that he was rather less than honest in answering a question which, frankly, could have been answered with a straight yes or no. We did not get that today.
Some people genuinely believed that the Government's policy towards the coal industry was to rid the industry of uneconomic capacity, so pit closures were inevitable. There can be little doubt that the Government wanted and still want a coal industry in which economics plays the most important part, regardless of the consequences. Those who took that view were both naive and misguided. I do not say that there were not other objectives, but the major aim was to destroy the power of the NUM and, having done that, to pave the way for similar policies


against the whole trade union movement. The planning of the operation was as precise and deliberate as that of a military campaign. It is worth while taking a few sentences to say what constituted that operation and why I believe it to be so.
When the miners made the Prime Minister climb down over wages in 1981, several things happened. Coal production was stepped up until a total of 53 million tonnes was stocked, but—this is important—the Government ensured that 26 million tonnes of that stock were placed at the power stations. That was the crucial part of the operation. Incidentally, that amount was more than twice as much as had ever been stocked at the power stations in the history of the industry.
While that was happening, the Government were, in the House, changing the social security laws and regulations to the detriment of strikers. We now see the most infamous operating, in that miners on strike are deemed to be receiving strike pay—a sum of £16, which they never receive. That directly affects their social security entitlement and is part of the reason for the hardship among miners' families.
The Government were more explicit with other legislation. Their three trade union and employment Acts constitute a direct attack on the unions and form an important part of the whole structure of the offensive not only on the miners but on the whole of the organised labour movement. The most flagrant attack on the miners was yet to come. Anyone who had any doubts at the time about the Government's intentions had them dispelled with the appointment of Ian MacGregor as chairman of the NCB. His record in the United States and this country was an ideal qualification, in the eyes of the most callous of Prime Ministers, for the rundown of the industry, regardless of the social costs, and, as some of us would argue, regardless of the economic costs to the country. Some of my hon. Friends demonstrated that today.
Had that been the end of the story, it would have been bad enough, but there was more to come. MacGregor chose when and how to launch his attack with considerable ease. He provoked the strike at the beginning of spring so that some six months of fine weather could be expected. In the event, that fine weather materialised. He also announced the closure of five pits without carrying out the normal consultations or procedures that were in operation at the time. That is one of the most disgraceful acts that has taken place in the dispute.
I have not said anything new in describing those events, but they constitute the most devious operations against organised labour in this century and are reminiscent of the action taken by employers in the 18th and 19th centuries, when trade unions were beginning to make themselves heard. I have to say that the Government and the NCB have had some success, but I say to the Secretary of State that it is a short-term success, and the Government had better not forget it.
The original purpose of the Government's and the NCB's policy was to remove 4 million tonnes of capacity from production and to reduce the number of jobs by 20,000. There are various estimates of how much has been taken out of the industry, but it is reasonable to assume, on the basis of past production figures, that 80 million tonnes will have been taken out because of the strike. There will be no trouble for the Government with regard

to manpower because they will get rid of the 20,000 workers with no problem when the strike comes to a conclusion.
As that is the situation, why on earth are the board and the Government being so stubborn, obstinate and, above all, so vindictive about it? The answer is plain for everyone to see. They are revelling unashamedly in a political strike of their own making.
However, I warn the Government. I said a few moments ago that they were having some short-term success. In the longer term, people who do not hold any particular brief for the miners will say — indeed, they are saying it now — "Enough is enough." They are appalled by the hardship among miners' families, they are frightened by the alienation of the police and the new uses to which police forces have been put, and they are bewildered by the divisions in the mining communities and the conflict between some mining and non-mining areas. They fear, with justification, that the fabric of our society, torn as it has been by almost a year of strife, will not be the same for a generation; that the changes will affect every man, woman and child for a generation.
The Government may believe that their war is won. We have seen evidence of that in the speeches today. Thinking that would be foolish in the extreme. Thousands of miners—many in my constituency—are determined to stay out in the absence of an honourable settlement, and that will exacerbate the present difficulties in the dispute, regardless of whether more than 50 per cent. go back to work. The Government have not persuaded miners to return to work by the force of their arguments; that has been done by the hardship brought upon the miners by the sheer political spite of the Prime Minister and her senior colleagues.
The Government have left and continue to leave unanswered several important questions. Let me put them quickly. I have already mentioned one, about why the Government do not recognise the loss of production and manpower. Several of my hon. Friends have raised my second point. Why do the Government not have the grace and humility to consider that their concept of the "profitability" of a pit is now under serious question? There are at least four studies — indeed, about half a dozen have been mentioned in the debate—which are objective and have no connection with the NUM or the NCB, and which dispute the accountancy methods of the board and the Government. After all, this is at the centre of the dispute, and it is arrogance in the extreme for the Government to believe that they hold a monopoly of wisdom on such a crucial issue in the face of such contrary evidence.
I remind the Government that the miners see this as a dispute about jobs and the destruction of the mining communities. The belated offer of £5 million towards a company to provide new jobs is a disgrace to a mining community which has such a great tradition. Indeed, the Government themselves were shamefaced, because that figure has now been increased to £10 million. When I asked the Secretary of State about this last week, he said, "Well, of course, we can consider a higher figure if necessary." That reveals the weakness of the Government's case.
If the Government are really serious about helping to create alternative employment, they will have to think much more seriously than they have done so far. If I had time, I could draw a parallel with Consett in my own area.
The case for coal is overwhelming. If we had a Government who believed in an expanding economy, we would never have coal stocks of more than 50 million tonnes. An increase in exports, the extension of the boiler conversion scheme and taking coal liquefaction seriously are only some of the things that could produce a successful and expanding coal industry.

Mr. John Hannam: It is appropriate that on this day, when a hesitant and reluctant Labour party leadership has been forced to use its Supply day for a coal debate, a record number of striking miners have returned to work. By lunchtime alone, 2,237 miners had turned their backs on Mr. Scargill and the dinosaurian NUM, including 870 in the north-east in Northumbria and Durham and 552 in the Scargill home area of Yorkshire.
That clearly shows that the stream is now turning into a flood and that the NUM case is collapsing around its ears. Therefore, this debate is not about the war—the dispute — but about the peace. The war is effectively over. The soldiers are putting down their weapons and are on their way back. Therefore, I do not wish to go over the old ground but to concentrate on the present position.
Many hon. Members will speak as representatives of coal mining constituencies, and their evidence and advice is always valuable to the House. But as we know, our loyalties to our constituents to a great extent often influence our attitudes. That is only to be expected. My position is that of one who since the early 1970s has been involved in the energy sector. I do not represent a coal mining constituency but I can claim to have shown consistent support for the development of a successful coal industry.
Through Coal Bill after Coal Bill throughout the 1970s and under different Governments, I have seen financial provision for miners, their families and the industry increase substantially. I have seen Labour Governments close pits on uneconomic grounds, just as I have Conservative Governments—matched at the same time by stupendous amounts of investment in new fields. I must, however, say that the Conservative record on pit closures comes nowhere near the numbers closed under the Labour Governments of 1964 and 1974, when 295 pits were closed and 250,000 miners put out of work at derisory levels of compensation compared with those now offered by this Government.
Many uneconomic pits have closed under Labour. Provision for that was included in the Coal Industry Act 1977, when the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), then Secretary of State for Energy, took the powers necessary to assist financially with the Coal Board's
elimination of uneconomic colliery capacity".
The clearest evidence of the political nature of this dispute is the fact that the NUM sat down and took passively the Labour Government's massive closure programme without strike action, while a small and relatively well-cushioned closure of about 20 pits has produced this crippling and self-destructive unballoted strike.

Mr. Allen McKay: rose——

Mr. Hannam: I am sorry, but time does not allow me to give way to interventions.
The Labour leadership has known the NUM case to be flimsy from the very beginning. It has also known that the actions of the strikers have been undemocratic. That is

why the Opposition have been so equivocal about debating this issue or about standing up to be counted on the real reason for the dispute, which is obviously a naked attempt to overthrow an elected Government by violent methods.
Once again, the country can see the hypocrisy of the Labour party, which says one thing in government and another in opposition. It is like Dr. Doolittle's "push-me-pull-you", which faced both ways at the same time. Throughout this dispute, the Opposition have argued that the Government should intervene. There has now been a reversal, and the Opposition are saying that the Government must take no action, even when the most sensible statements are made by the Prime Minister or by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. The coal board requirement that any further talks must include the closure of uneconomic pits is surely common sense. That is the very nub of the dispute. After seven previous negotiations and a rejected ACAS arbitration, any final set of talks must evolve around an agreed system for such closures.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Why?

Mr. Hannam: Because that is the very nub of the dispute.
To try to make political capital through accusations of revenge and malice on the part of the coal board and the Government is just stuff and nonsense, and totally irresponsible at that. The Labour party should be persuading the beleaguered NUM executive that it must agree to uneconomic pits being top of the agenda because, as I have said, that is the crux of the whole dispute.
Mr. Scargill's desire to fight on does not necessarily mean the loss of his job, his car or his pension, but it means that, day by day, the union is facing disruption and loss of integrity and the miners are facing the loss of coal faces and coal markets. I do not think that Mr. Scargill is too bothered about the effect on the Labour party. If that collapsed, I am sure that along with some of his friends he would be happy to pick up the pieces and remould it into a shape that he would like.
In my work in the energy sector, I meet many industy representatives who at various times present their views on energy matters which affect their firms. In recent weeks and months, the one message that has come through strong and clear is that, if we could put the coal industry on to a competitive, productive footing, industry which uses large amounts of energy would invest large amounts of capital in new coal firing plant and processes.
Only last week I met the leaders of the British Paper and Board Industries Federation, who use large amounts of energy for their continuous process mills. They informed us that, just before the beginning of the coal dispute last March, that industry had decided in principle to convert to coal. This was based on its evaluation of Mr. MacGregor's plans for an expanding, competitive coal industry, including the phasing out of heavily uneconomic pits and the development of new low-cost fields. The investment programmes of those industries ran into millions of pounds per plant, with resultant large orders and jobs as well as new customers for the coal industry. All those plans were shelved when the dispute began.
Labour Members must realise that these major investments in coal-burning plant will not take place if coal does not become more competitive. In other words,


if for one political reason or another a final deal is fudged and uneconomic pit closures do not take place, we shall lose the opportunity for these major advances in the installation of coal-burning plant.
That was confirmed at a CBI meeting last week, when I was informed that the wholesale price of coal had to come down from about £55 a tonne to about £35 a tonne. That is why this is a crucial and fundamental issue, and why I fully support the coal board's determination to achieve that aim. It represents the future of the British coal industry. With a competitive price, coal production could rise to between 130 million and 140 million tonnes a year, as Mr. MacGregor stated before the strike began. Without a successful outcome, the continuation of high-cost fuel and coal production will cause the industry to wither away and production to decline to between 70 million and 80 million tonnes.
I want to see the targets for exports of British coal achieved, an increase in the numbers of firms converting to the use of coal, and a modern industry emerging. I want that industry to be highly paid, highly skilled and highly successful. That is why the NCB is absolutely right to insist on this fundamental issue being top of the agenda.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I shall deal with the central issue of the dispute and the debate—the definition of the word "economic". In a letter to The Guardian in the autumn Lord Kaldor said:
Uneconomic pits, though they cause financial losses, bring a net benefit in the form of an additional supply of exhaustible resources which otherwise would not be retrievable.
That simple text shows that we cannot talk about coal and fossil fuels as if they were manufactured goods which could be produced at a development agency advance factory.
Since I have been a Member of the House, the Conservative party has not produced any arguments about uneconomic farming. We have not heard arguments about the economics of food production, yet the same arguments apply to the extractive industry of coal production as to the extractive industry of agriculture. I should like Ministers and Tory supporters who talk about economic pits to address their remarks to agriculture.
We hear that individual pits are uneconomic, yet the Trident missile programme at £11 billion, the fortress Falklands policy at £5 billion—an uneconomic pit if ever there was one — and the advanced gas-cooled reactor nuclear programme are within the Government's definition of "economic". Only the coal industry is not economic. The only way to explain that is by understanding the economics of the coal industry in terms of the Government's overall approach to public expenditure, and especially to those who work in the coal industry and the National Union of Mineworkers.
Recently we heard a further analysis of the Government's assessment of uneconomic pits. I refer to the work done by two economists at the university of Wales — Tony Cutler and Karel Williams. They examined the basis of the NCB's calculations that were presented to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1981. Their analysis shows clearly that the 70 pits identified by the NCB as big loss-makers and highly uneconomic, many of which are in the south Wales

coalfield, are not high-cost pits, but pits that are marginal to the board's investment strategy. There is an important difference between those two points.
An uneconomic pit is not one that is losing large sums, but a pit that is marginal to the NCB's investment strategy. It is noticeable that the real link between the 70 pits is not a lack of profitability but a lack of investment. They are located in the geographically peripheral coalfields in Wales, Scotland and Durham. The comparative figures in cash and percentage totals for mining investment by NCB area between 1979–80 and 1983–84 show that Scotland received 4·5 per cent. of the total investment, and south Wales 3·5 per cent. In cash terms the investment level in south Wales has declined from £52 million in 1979–80 to £24 million in 1983–84. The NCB's investment strategy creates uneconomic pits.
The Government argue, and the NCB confirms, that the free market determines the price of coal and the energy market, and therefore that the economics of the free market and the profitability of a product in the free market determine what is economic. That is wholly spurious economics. The shape of the energy market is determined by the Central Electricity Generating Board, which takes about 70 per cent. of the NCB's output. Therefore, there is no free market in coal. That notion is pure Thatcherite-Government propaganda. The price, profitability and investment prospects of coal are not dictated by a spurious free market but determined by negotiations between two Government-controlled monopolies—the CEGB and the NCB. The CEGB is encouraged to increase its selling prices, and the NCB is expected to cut its prices so that coal price rises are kept below the rate of inflation. A continued hidden subsidy is coming increasingly into the open—the hidden subsidy from the CEGB to the NCB, which makes the CEGB economic and the NCB uneconomic. Therefore, the shape of the energy market is determined by the Government.
The investment strategy of the NCB is also decided by the Government, and therefore it is an essentially political decision to invest heavily in the super-pits in Nottinghamshire and to starve the south Wales pits with their irreplaceable reserves of low sulphur-content coal. That strategy is a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the so-called uneconomic pits of south Wales are starved of resources, they become, in the Government's terms, more uneconomic.
In 1983 in south Wales, investment per head was £11,400, and incurred operating costs of £58·8 per tonne. The north Nottinghamshire coalfield received £21,900 per head and had an operating cost of £32 per tonne. There is a clear link between the level of investment and the productivity in so-called uneconomic pits. The profitability of pits has as much, if not more, to do with the amount of investment in them as with their geological condition, to which Conservative Members always refer when they talk about uneconomic pits.
The Government have not found funds for new investment, and the NCB has not placed its new investment in the peripheral areas. As a result it is a political decision to centralise production in the large capital-intensive and ultimately union-free areas. The central coalfields will no doubt be privatised. At the same time those areas which are economic in real terms—in terms of the energy needs of Britain—are starved of investment.
I have a nuclear power station in my constituency and I represent nuclear power workers. If we applied the same accounting practice to nuclear power stations, there would be a large number of uneconomic nuclear power stations, but the Government do not apply the same practices. While the Government face their sterling crisis, their argument about the relative costs of imported coal and home-produced coal is turned on its head. NCB profitability was calculated on an exchange rate of $1·70, but the rate has now declined. At the present rate, home-produced coal is as profitable in the Government's own free market terms as imported coal.
The Government will not heed what I have said because they are not interested in the economics of energy policy, to which many hon. Members have sought to refer during the debate. Their main interest is in the political outcome of the dispute. They are conducting a campaign on the basis, not of economic rationality, but of the Thatcherite philosophy of a free market, and especially on the restructuring of politics of Britain. Because the mining areas have continually produced Socialist leaders who have challenged the economics of the free market, the Government seek to destroy the mining communities. In south Wales we understand that the enemy within is not found in the pits of west Yorkshire or west Wales, but here in the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who congratulated the people on strike on their forbearance during the tough winter. I remind him that the winter is almost over, and that stocks are high. I wish to pay tribute to the 70,000 miners—42 per cent. of the work force — who are working. The striking miners can end their plight by going back to work tomorrow if they so choose.
An interesting point about the debate is that so far Opposition Members have focused on the Government and have not mentioned Mr. Scargill. Let us examine what Mr. Scargill has done. There have been seven rounds of talks, and on each occasion he could have put many matters on the agenda. After each set of talks, he said, "What a good man I have been. I have not moved an inch." Mr. Scargill has disregarded the law. In the Financial Times of 3 October, Mr. Scargill is quoted as saying:
Let me say this. The High Court decision, as far as we are concerned, will not be accepted. Our rules and constitution have been upheld, and the Derbyshire strike is official. The Yorkshire strike is official, and 86 per cent. of the members in an individual ballot voted for the decision … There is no High Court judge going to take away the democratic right of our union to deal with internal affairs. We are an independent democratic trade union.
Here is a man who is prepared to defy the law to vindicate his actions. He says, "To hell with the law of the land." No one in the House, from the Conservative party and I dare say from the Opposition, would give credence to those remarks.
I have never heard Mr. Scargill say that he condones intimidation or that he is prepared to accept a picket of six or seven, as laid down by the CBI—[HON. MEMBERS: "The CBI?"] The CBI has accepted some discipline, as has the TUC. Mr. Scargill is prepared to cast aside TUC advice because he wishes to goad by intimidation. It is remarkable that the Opposition have exonerated him from all responsibility, but have fixed all the responsibility on a Government who provide investment in the industry.

The Government have said that none of the 20,000 workers involved will become unemployed. They will all be engaged elsewhere and there will be no mandatory redundancies. Those who wish to accept the redundancy terms—probably the best in British industry—can do so. Will they not accept those terms?
I wish that I could persuade the NUM to accept that coal cannot live in a market which is out of balance. In the 20 most profitable and successful pits, it costs £28 to produce a tonne of coal, whereas in the 20 worst pits, it costs about £90 a tonne. But it is precisely the latter pits which Mr. Scargill will not allow to be closed. That is ridiculous. Does not the NUM realise that the future of mining will be a small, efficient industry producing about 100 million tonnes a year, with production increasing gradually in response to market conditions?
This is the most ludicrous dispute in British history, and it is about the closure of 20 pits that were outlined by the chairman of the coal board. Since the dispute began almost a year ago, about 37 coal faces have collapsed because of fire or convergence. That destruction could have been avoided. Although the NUM is trying to safeguard 20 pits, other coal faces have been collapsing right, left and centre. The miners are destroying their own facilities. From where will the money come to recreate those facilities in new pits?
The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) said that many pits could be made economic if we spent more money on them. We already spend £700 million a year on capital investment in the industry. Further, there are deficit and and other grants payable to the board. The coal industry is pre-empting too much of the nation's wealth. What about the rest of industry, including high technology industry, which requires money? It is being neglected.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) mentioned pit closures. I should like to go through all the points he made with him. I have also received documents from Gavyn Davies of Simon and Coates and from David Metcalf. It is not for us to argue during this short debate about what should happen now and what should be taken into account. When the coal board regains the confidence of the mining communities after the dispute, it is for the NCB to reach the right conclusions about the industry. I hope that when the strike is over, the board's finances will be reconstructed. The board is completely and technically insolvent, and much of its debt will have to be written off.

Mr. Nellist: How can the hon. Gentleman say that pits are uneconomic?

Mr. Skeet: The coal board exists only because the taxpayer is prepared to subsidise it enormously. It is subsidised much more than any other industry, and the public are becoming fed up with it. The coal board survives only because the public are prepared to pay higher prices for electricity than they need do. Everyone knows that that is true. The Government have been able to get through this winter successfully because more than 18 per cent. of our power is produced by nuclear and oil power stations, and we have obtained cheap, imported coal. I acknowledge that British coal is becoming more competitive as the pound falls against the dollar. However, we must remember that to keep British prices competitive for the consumer, we must have some imports.
During our debates on the Coal Industry Act 1980, the Government talked about their hopes for the profitability of the industry by 1983–84. When that time arrived, the coal board was no nearer profitability. We were then told that there could be a vast expansion in the mines and that we had many years of reserves. But, of course, that was not true. We have also been told that we should invest heavily in the industry because we have security of supply. We have had no such thing. We had trouble with the mining community in 1971–72, interruptions in coal supplies in 1973 and 1974, and serious disruption in supplies in 1984 and 1985.
Finally, may I say this to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and the Government: we must remember the Government's responsibility to the nation to ensure that we have enough stocks to see us through the winter, and to ensure that the prices charged for that fuel are reasonable.

Mr. Ray Ellis: This debate has been like nearly all other debates. At least the Government's track record is consistent. When they first took office in 1979, they started to blame everything on previous Governments, and five and half years later they are still doing it. I do not absolve from my strictures any Government, past, present or to come, who will sterilise vast tracts of the nation's precious coal wealth underground for the sake of temporary economic expedience.
I would prefer to consider the acquired wisdom of the ages. Let us start with Lord Stockton. He had recently been in the headlines for attacking the Government's monetary policies. I refer to the days when he was Britain's Prime Minister — "Supermac". He went to Washington to speak to the Government on Capitol Hill on behalf of Britain. He told the Yanks that they could not compare their economy to ours. They are fortunate and have the benefits of farmlands, forests and mineral wealth. In Britain, he pointed out, the only thing that we have is fish around our shores, the coal under our feet and the skills of our workpeople. His words to the Senate were:
Our greatest asset is the quality of our workforce".
Our skills in industry enable Britain to survive and compete. Of the three important things—fish, coal and skill—the Government have discarded all three.
Macmillan went to the United States to defend Britain—MacGregor has been brought from the United States to destroy Britain. The roots of the miners' strike must lie in the series of deliberate acts of provocation committed by MacGregor on behalf of the Government. They have sought a battle, provoked a battle and, by the spirits, they have got a battle. No doubt they will argue that they did not want to destroy the coal mining industry, but intended only to destroy the spirit of the workers. Events have shown that they cannot have one without the other. The day will never come when we have a quiescent work force in Britain that will accept the stupid diktats that come from the monetarist policy of the Prime Minister.
No one in the NCB, and certainly no one in the Government, would have believed that the great bulk of the miners would still be out when the strike approached its first anniversary. However, the miners are still out, and it is not because they have been hypnotised by Arthur

Scargill or anyone else. It is because they see that the continued existence of their pit is the only alternative to generations of abject poverty.
They are not on strike because they are masochists or because they are enamoured of being locked away from daylight underground, scrabbling for a living on their hands and knees and eating coal dust. Like the Prime Minister, they see no alternative. There is no other hope. Since 1979, they have seen the steelworks decimated, jobs lost in their communities, in the service industries for which they had hopes for their kids, in the Health Service and in education. They have seen whole factories packed up in crates to be sent off to be used by our competitors. They have seen the Government busily exporting whatever other alternative employment there has been.
It is indisputable that the logic of the Prime Minister's monetary policy taken to its conclusion decrees that there can be no reversal of the trend of constant grinding down until the living standards of ordinary British working people are driven below those of the peasants in Korea, Hong Kong and Hanoi. There are many on the Government Benches who know this to be true and some who applaud it.
I can give an enlightening example of the thinking behind the talk, of the philosophy of the chairman of the coal board and the Government who imported him. It can be found in Mr. MacGregor's choice of words—if they are his. Earlier in the strike, Mr. MacGregor manipulated words, and offered the word "beneficial" as the criterion for pit closures. The Prime Minister applauded it and repeated it here. However, she got that word from her study of Victorian values. In 1848, when giving evidence to a public inquiry, the agent for the Countess of Durham, who owned 23 coal mines, objected to the abolition of child labour underground on the grounds that it would not be "beneficial". If anybody has been in any doubt as to what this dispute has been about, they should know now.
The Government's policies are debasing Britain, and selling us short. There are some on the Government Benches who know that this is so and disagree with it. They should assert themselves to ensure that the trend is reversed. They should start now, tonight, by voting with us to ensure that the Prime Minister is compelled to tell MacGregor to get the coal board back to the negotiating table, in the interests not only of the miners but of the future of the nation.

Mr. David Ashby: As the House knows, a large number of coal mining constituencies are represented by Conservative Members, and that can only be because a large number of miners voted for this Government.
In this debate, we have heard what can only be described as a confidence trick deployed by the Labour party — a sleight of mouth if not of hand. No doubt, when the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) winds up, we shall hear not only about the sweat of the brow but about starving miners, one of the great confidence tricks perpetrated on the British people. We have heard of food being sent from Poland—food that would be better sent to Ethiopia. I have not seen any starving miners. They all seem to be as well-padded as I am.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman has never seen a miner.

Mr. Ashby: Of course I have — I have a mining constituency.
This confidence trick has been so well carried out that the Leader of the Opposition had to tell the Russians that the miners were not starving. That is a measure of the untruths that have been coming from Labour Members.
Another untruth is the use of the word "vindictive". The Government are said to be "vindictive". This is said to be a "vindictive" policy. It would be vindictive if the Government were to say that there was no more money for the industry and that they were going to stop supporting it. Instead, we are supporting it in a way that the Opposition never did, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House today.
The other word that we have heard is "provocation". Apparently it was a provocation to appoint as chairman of the NCB one of the most knowledgeable men in the mining industry who, at the age of 73, has been in mining throughout almost all his life and who has more knowledge of the industry in his little finger than most Opposition Members have in their bodies. Apparently it is a provocation to refuse to give in to economic madness. If that is provocation, let us have a bit more of it.
My constituency includes two minefields—the south Leicester minefield and about 80 per cent. of the south Derbyshire minefield—[Interruption.] I apologise to the House. I meant, of course, coalfield.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman is in a minefield, all right.

Mr. Ashby: It may be one, I agree.
In south Leicestershire, only 30 out of 6,000 miners are on strike. The men there insisted that they would continue to work until there was a ballot. They demanded a ballot in Leicestershire. There was no ballot, so they continued to work. Because they have chosen to work, they are subjected to violence and intimidation. Villages in north-west Leicestershire have suffered at the hands of hordes of pickets from as far afield as Kent. They damage gardens. They urinate in gardens. They make life quite impossible for the people who live in those villages. Shops have been broken into. There has been a general aura of intimidation and violence in the area.
The resolve of my constituents who work in the industry has not been broken, and I should tell the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that Mr. Scargill — [Interruption.] I call him "Mr. Scargill", although we keep hearing from Opposition Members about "MacGregor". There seems to be no politeness among the Opposition. What is more, it is surprising how, when a Government supporter who represents a mining constituency is on his feet, the noise begins to come from the Opposition. We are seeing exactly the intimidation in the House that we see outside.
When Mr. Scargill visited Rawdon colliery in my constituency, he stayed for only about five minutes. The miners bundled him into a car and made him leave.

Mr. Flannery: Intimidation.

Mr. Ashby: I ask why Mr. Scargill is loathed by Leicestershire and south Derbyshire miners to the extent that he is. It is because he has linked the NUM closely with unprecedented intimidation and blackmail. He has destroyed one of the finer unions. He has destroyed villages, pitting father against son and brother against

brother—all for a spurious claim about the supposed destruction of pits and jobs which is not sustained by the facts. In Leicestershire, it is known that the Government and the NCB have stood by their pledges. The board is going ahead at Asfordby, for example, and the Government are providing the capital.

Mr. Flannery: The taxpayer.

Mr. Ashby: Leicestershire miners know that the precondition of the NUM not to discuss the closure of pits on economic grounds flies in the face of reason. They know that that is why the Labour party closed so many pits when they formed the Government.

Mr. Flannery: By agreement.

Mr. Ashby: They also know that the NCB has negotiated seven times and failed seven times because the NUM would not discuss the very heart and core of the matters needing to be discussed. Seven meetings later, the NUM has the cheek to say that it has no preconditions. It says that, but it also says that it will not talk about the closure of pits on economic grounds. That seems to be the prime precondition that the NUM and Mr. Scargill are putting forward.
It is Mr. Scargill who has not given an inch in the last 11 months. He has perpetrated a confidence trick on the nation by saying that he has no preconditions. I say that that is a cruel and heartless confidence trick played on the many who pray for the end of this madness.
Mr. Scargill talks about the decimation of whole villages because they are dependent on mining. If they are, why not put NUM money, as National Coal Board Enterprises Ltd. has put its money, into profitable ventures which diversify industry in those areas, instead of putting it, as it has done, into Luxembourg banks? Why not unite with and inspire local authorities positively to improve their towns?
We have seen Corby recover from the loss of its steel industry, and it has recovered very well. Coal areas recover from pit closures, but that recovery needs a positive attitude and not a negative one.
Given a partnership between all, everyone can benefit. In my constituency, Coalville has lost one pit and is close to losing another. Vigorous efforts have been made with National Coal Board Enterprises Ltd and with the European Coal and Steel Community—and we could do with NUM money as well—to revitalise the area and to look for new industries and jobs to replace those being lost. Instead, we find that the NUM is so busy playing power politics that it forgets about the very people whom it purports to represent.
I also wonder about the resolve of some of these areas. Many of them have Labour councils. I wonder whether those areas have the resolve to provide the extra industry that is required.
Everyone should get together. We must see NUM money injected into these areas as well. Let us build for the future.

Mr. Michael Welsh: At the outset, I want to put the record straight, because the Secretary of State made yet another announcement today to the effect that Arthur Scargill wanted every pit to stay open until the last tonne of coal had been brought out. That is quite wrong. No one who knows anything about mining would


make such a statement. When a mine ends production, a certain amount of coal must be left to support the roofs so that the chocks can be removed. Arthur Scargill, to my knowledge, has never said that, and I am interested to know from where the right hon. Gentleman picked up that assertion. If it is not the case and the right hon. Gentleman made it up, I hope that he will not repeat it, because it is a foolish statement and not worthy of any man, even of his character.
I want also to put the record straight about Arthur Scargill. It must be emphasised that he takes his orders from the national executive. As a member of that executive, I happen to know what goes on there. Arthur only carries out its wishes.
I should like to make another correction for the record. The Secretary of State said that Arthur Scargill was holding on to meet ACAS to delay negotiations. ACAS telephoned the national executive of the TUC at about 1.45 pm on Friday and asked to see Arthur, Mick McGahey and Peter Heathfield. The information came by telephone. ACAS asked to see Arthur, not the other way around. I attended the meeting when Arthur gave ACAS the reply "information?" I do not wish to make a point about that, just to set the record straight.
The dispute is about the right to work. The NUM believes that it should have that right and the Government do not. The NUM has written to the NCB asking for negotiations without preconditions many times and the board has refused. On 1 February the board asked the NUM to provide a basis for negotiations. The NUM therefore set down five issues. They were discussions on "Plan for Coal" — the board agrees on that — future collieries and units, the five collieries threatened with immediate closure, the 6 March 1984 proposals and an amnesty. The NUM sent that agenda only because it was asked to do so by the NCB but, as far as I know, the NCB has not replied.
The Government and the NCB want to close uneconomic areas. If so, the first area that should be closed is Nottingham. It has been working all year and is making losses of millions of pounds. I am sure that Conservative Members do not want Nottinghamshire to be closed because it is uneconomic.

Mr. Andy Stewart: It is not true that Nottinghamshire is uneconomic.

Mr. Welsh: I am using NCB figures. To be fair to the NCB, all annual accounts in any industry are suspect because of how they are compiled. If units are closed on the basis of suspect accounts, nobody knows whether the units being closed are genuinely uneconomic. That is why there should be detailed negotiations between the NUM and the NCB to define an uneconomic unit.
It should not be forgotten that when a pit is closed, the one next to it is made uneconomic as a pit carries a lot of on-costs, which are thrown on the pit that remains open. Therefore, pits that are profitable according to their own accounts can be made unprofitable by closing the pits next to them. The result could be just one open pit because all of the others have been closed as a result of having to bear the on-costs of pits that were closed before them. Such a result would be daft and, as the NUM said, the issue should be discussed in more detail.
When pits are closed, shaft capacity is closed. Demand for coal will increase towards the end of the century but it cannot be met as is the case with a factory. It is possible to get out of a pit only what the shaft capacity allows. Moreover, the critical path of a pit takes 12 to 15 years to meet increased demand.
One of the great issues is the NCB's right to manage. The Government are not asking that it be allowed to manage, they are asking that MacGregor be allowed to dictate. That is a different kettle of fish. They are asking that he should be allowed to dictate just as the Prime Minister dictates to her Cabinet and Back Benchers. I should like to give an example of management.
In 1940, I was pony driving at Bullcroft colliery when the west side went up. Management knew that there had been an explosion, and we had to send six lads in. When they went in there was a second explosion. That often happens underground. We sent in another team, which could get in only so far, and it found the first two lads who were dead. When it came to sending in another team to get the other four who we thought were dead, and most probably were, management came to the union and said, "Please order us to seal it off." We said, "Why do not you take the decision—you are management?" They replied, "Oh, but it's your pit an all, why don't you?" The union had to decide to seal off the corridor. That was probably the right decision but those four kiddies are still down there. We cannot expect managers just to manage pits. They must manage and work with the union through consultation, and more consultation, but that is not what the Prime Minister wants.
There is no such thing as the right to manage in an extraction industry. It is not possible to have a young manager coming in and saying, "Do this, do that." At a coal face he would ask the men, "Which is the best way to do it?" As to the right to manage, it should be done correctly. There should not be dictatorship, which is what MacGregor wants.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: I am proud and privileged to represent a mining constituency in the Yorkshire coalfield. I hope that I share with the majority of right hon. and hon. Members the conviction and belief that coal should be at the centre of the provision of energy requirements for Britain long into the future.
However, that future can come only if the price charged by the industry is competitive and if the industry is profitable. An industry or company that is not profitable in the long term will never be able to protect or preserve the jobs of the people who work in it. That inevitably means that the coal industry must look to its future from investment rather than subsidy and that uneconomic pits must be closed, albeit within the framework of a proper consultation process.
Pit closures have always occurred and Opposition Members are right to say that circumstances are now different. The principal difference is that Arthur Scargill is president of the NUM. From the day of his election, he has been determined to have a strike. He has tried to do that through the democratic process and failed repeatedly.
As we have read in the newspapers during the weekend and this morning, the machinations of that man on the executive committee of the National Union of Mineworkers have led to the calling of this deeply undemocratic strike. He has not only denied to the rank


and file members of his union the benefit of the ballot to which they are entitled; he has even manoeuvred his own executive so that the strike was called without the majority support of the members of the executive. Because the miners are a deeply democratic group of people this strike has inevitably opened up the deepest rifts within the mining community. It can only be enforced by intimidation and violence by the leadership of the union.
There have been various references to me during the course of the debate. I should like to put on record certain circumstances that were erroneously reported in The Times a couple of weeks ago. I am proud to be the president of the Yorkshire area of the Conservative trade unionist organisation and in that capacity will accept —[Laughter.] The laughter on the Labour benches masks the fear that lurks within them. They know that millions of ordinary trade unionists now vote for the Conservative party because their aims and objectives have been betrayed by the Labour party. I have always accepted invitations to speak to groups of miners, but I have never encouraged anybody to break away from the National Union of Mineworkers. Quite the contrary. When people come to me and say that they are dissatisfied with their officials or with their leadership in the NUM I say to them, "You stay in the NUM and fight for what you believe in." If people drop out of the union it will be for ever condemned to the extremists. Those who come to meetings say, "We are not Tories, but it is only the Tories who will stand up for those who wish to preserve their democratic rights."
Despite all the noise that we hear tonight from the Labour Benches and despite all their intimidation I shall continue, as will all my hon. Friends, to fight for the rights of people to work in the mining industry free from the intimidation of Arthur Scargill and his colleagues. It is those people who are really fighting for the future of the British mining industry. It is their courage and commitment to democracy within the NUM that is an inspiration to this country. It is also a signpost to the way forward. As yet further negotiations founder on Arthur Scargill's intransigence, these men are showing how to fight for the future of their industry.
Arthur Scargill boasts that he has not moved an inch since the strike began. There is a belief among Conservative Members of Parliament and in the country that whenever the return to work builds up steam Arthur Scargill calls for another set of abortive negotiations to try to set it back. All Conservative Members of Parliament believe that the best way for this strike to end is by means of a negotiated settlement. However, there must be only one more set of negotiations. That must be the one to end the strike. And there is no way for the strike to be ended unless at the top of the agenda is the closure of uneconomic pits. That is what the strike has been about from the very beginning.
There are also other important matters that the Government must consider. This strike is nearing its end. As everybody recognises, it has been lost. Therefore we must look to the future of this industry. We must consider what the Government need to do to reassure the people who have been working so hard to preserve that future. The Government must continue to reaffirm and confirm their commitment to investment in the industry in order to ensure that large scale, profitable production will be continued for many years ahead. The Government must continue to guarantee unequivocally to the working miners their fullest protection against intimidation — not just

now during the strike, but against any victimisation in the years ahead after the strike is over. The Government must ensure that when the strike is over there is a general amnesty within the industry for those who have worked and for those who have not worked. Those coming back to work must be sure that they will be free from such pressures and that they will not lose either because they have worked or because they have not worked.
The Government must look again at the funding of National Coal Board Enterprises. This type of vehicle could be very successful in stimulating new jobs. The Government must also look at the work of the enterprise agencies which have been successful and try to pull them together by means of adequate funding. In areas such as mine all miners who wish to continue to work when their pits are closed will be offered jobs in other mines in the area. I believe that the NCB must look at the provision of a proper transport network so that people can remain in their communities while accepting jobs that are some distance away.

Mr. Lofthouse: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Batiste: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse). I have a limited time in which to speak and I shall finish what I have to say. No amount of yobbo yelling from the Left will make me change my mind. Not only must the NCB provide a system of transport so that the fabric of those communities can be preserved, but it is also obliged——

Mr. Lofthouse: rose——

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) has said definitely that he is not giving way.

Mr. Batiste: If you will give me extra time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall have no fear about giving way to the Opposition, but I have promised to be brief. Because so many people may in the future live some distance away from their work—[Interruption.]
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I believe the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) has a point of order.

Mr. Allen McKay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you please give a ruling upon whether the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) is either deliberately or unintentionally misleading the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As far as I could hear, the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) made no definite allegation against any other hon. Member.

Mr. Batiste: Because the future pattern may be that miners will live at a greater distance from their pits than has been traditionally the case, I believe that the NCB must look at the provision that it makes for the holding of branch meetings, both as to the timing and the facilities offered for those meetings.
Having listened to the debate and to the noise on the Labour Benches, appreciating that the face of the rabble they are demonstrating here is the same sort of face that they are showing in the coalfields to the members of the NUM, I am ever more proud that I am a Conservative representative of a mining constituency and I am ever


more determined to fight against the abuses of democracy that, unfortunately, in this day are typified by the Labour party.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Already during the debate I have noticed that Conservative Members have accused my hon. Friends and me of noise and rowdiness. The charge is unjust. At the beginning of the debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) was virtually shouted down. No Conservative Member has been shouted down by my hon. Friends and me, although from time to time we have been roused either to mockery or to irritation by some of the silly things that have been said.
I want to say a word or two about my constituency, which is where the strike began. During the past 12 months I have been horrified on numerous occasions by the deliberate attempts that have been made to provide disinformation, first by senior people in the coal board and then to a very real extent by the Secretary of State for Energy who said this afternoon that no decision had been taken to close Cortonwood colliery—that it had merely been suggested that its future should be reviewed. However, the Minister knows that all of the mining unions in the south Yorkshire area were brought together and told that Cortonwood would cease to produce coal in five weeks' time, that the men would be transferred and that the matter would then be put before the colliery review procedure — an absolute mockery of the supposed arrangement.
Conservative Members have said that nobody wants collieries to be closed. My hon. Friends and I accept that all collieries have a life and that collieries do close. The Minister is well aware that only a couple of miles away from Cortonwood is Elsecar colliery. That colliery ceased to produce coal towards the end of 1983. The miners in my constituency and in the constituencies of my hon. Friends recognised that Elsecar had to close. They were surprised when the National Coal Board guaranteed Cortonwood for five years and persuaded 100 men from the Elsecar colliery to transfer to Cortonwood. Some of those men had not even done a shift down Cortonwood before the decision was taken that it should cease to produce coal.
The hardship, sacrifice and bitterness that has developed during the past 12 months make this a very serious day for the House. We are entitled to demand that the Conservatives as well as my hon. Friends should treat this as a very serious matter.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will answer the point that I have just made and recognise that the Secretary of State may inadvertently have been indulging in the same disinformation as we have heard from the chairman and deputy chairman of the board and, in a letter in The Times, from the secretary to the board.
I was not surprised when the decision was taken. In a debate in December 1983 Labour Members were warning the Government that the situation in the mining industry was dreadful. We called on the Secretary of State to intervene to bring the parties together and to stop the crisis that we could see developing. He flatly refused to carry out what I thought then, and still think now, were his responsibilities. He was perhaps contributing to the

situation that we have described today in which we allege that the strike was largely engineered and manipulated by the Government; that it was "a good investment" for the Government, if I may quote the Chancellor. It is no good the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) waving his hand. The Chancellor of the Exchequer described the strike as "a good investment".
I do not know how much the strike has cost. The fiscal burden may be £5 billion. It will be an enormous sum. I am concerned not so much about the money that it has cost but the damage which has been done to the social chemistry of our coal fields. The immeasurable consequences of the dispute which have already been described are such as should make any intelligent sensitive politician aware of the enormity of the events.
A situation has developed in areas such as my own which a year ago none of us, not even the most experienced in public life, could have anticipated. Problems have been created that some of us will have to try to resolve. It is about time that Her Majesty's Government contributed to the settlement that they pretend they seek.
I was hopeful after the talks that resumed recently that there would be movement. But the fact remains—here I think that I am quoting the general view of NACODS, the association with which I am involved, and it is a view widely shared in the mining communities generally—that a settlement was in sight until No. 10 intervened. Nothing has been said from the Conservative Benches which in any way removes such suspicions which some of my hon. Friends may regard as a certainty.
The strike has gone on long enough. The miners who are on strike know that it has gone on long enough. I spoke to miner after miner in Swinton, Silverwood, Cortonwood miners welfare and in a hostelry yesterday at Rawmarsh frequented by members of the Kilnhurst NUM. Every one of them agrees with me that it is time that the strike was over. But they want to walk back to their pits. They are not prepared to be subjected to abject humiliation. They are not prepared to be treated like Argentine conscripts in the Falklands war. Those men have put up with more than any Conservative Member can begin to imagine. They are in debt to their eyeballs. They have suffered hardship.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: rose——

Mr. Hardy: No, I shall not give way.

Mrs. Currie: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is obviously not giving way.

Mr. Hardy: Some of my hon. Friends have been sitting here all day hoping to speak in this debate. The hon. Lady comes in late and then expects to get the headlines. I am not giving way for one reason and that is that while I hope that I shall never behave churlishly in the House, if I were to give way to the hon. Lady, I would feel tempted, when she sat down, to use the same response that one of the Scottish Members offered her the other day.
I intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and in the speech of the Secretary of State to try to clear up one important matter. It is important, and questions remain. The insistence of the Government or the board—I am not prepared to argue which is responsible — is that the NUM must write out in surrender terms that it accepts that


collieries will be closed. That is a contradiction to or a conflict with the agreement about which Ministers — I include the Prime Minister—have boasted since before Christmas.
If the NUM is to accept that collieries are to close without regard to the review procedures and the independent element which is firmly part of the NACODS agreement, the members of NACODS will definitely feel that their agreement is rendered worthless. They are increasingly angry because they are coming to believe that they have been led astray and used by a rather ruthless Administration.
If the Minister wants to see the situation degenerate further he will allow that uncertainty to continue. If he can relieve that uncertainty he will create a climate in which urgent negotiations can begin and a settlement achieved. That settlement is so urgently needed that the Minister should secure approval to clarify the matter before the debate ends.
We expect collieries to close. I have a number of collieries in my constituency and some of them have a short life. I do not know the score today, but the numbers returning to work in the collieries in my area are lower than the average in Yorkshire. When someone makes a critical analysis—a detailed history—of the dispute they will realise that the pits where few men have returned happen to be situated in areas of high unemployment.
I can understand the men in my area not being eager to return to work because they know that when their pit closes, as Cortonwood was supposed to close, a huge additional unemployment burden will be created in an area where one person in three is unemployed and where four out of five of our young people are idle.
Our people know that their pits will close but they should be closing in due time in a proper season after we have had some opportunity to create the alternative industry and employment that we need. For the Government to close collieries in areas where one in three is unemployed is foolish. It justifies one of the powerful arguments used in the industry that in some cases it may seem expensive to keep a colliery open but it can be far more costly to close it, particularly given the enormous social and other costs that are incurred.
The Minister must carry out a fine task. He must balance whether it is wise to close or keep open a pit. The NUM and my association recognise that the Government have not given adequate attention to that factor. We do not want to be merely remittance areas—areas where once there was a pride in work, a low level of unemployment and a real social stability. We do not want to get rid of that and become merely remittance areas to which the affluent parts of the country will offer a grudging dole.
There is a future for our area if we have a wise Administration. But a Government who have allowed the dispute to go on as long as it has, who have allowed such costs to be incurred as have been incurred, who have seen the bitterness and trouble we have had to bear in our areas, have so far not been very wise and it is about time that they were.

Mr. Richard Alexander: This is a debate which the Opposition leaders clearly wish had not taken place. Traditional Labour voters have been appalled at the fence-sitting of Labour leaders over the miners' strike. They have failed to condemn the worst violence that we

have seen over the past 50 years in industrial history. They have failed to tell the nation that my constituents and others should have a right to a ballot before we had this appalling carnage in the mining industry. They have failed to protect the welfare of those who are still in striking areas who fear to go to work because of the vengeance of the mob on themselves and their families if they do so. They have failed to support the police in upholding the rule of law and people's right to work.
In their efforts to be all things to all men, the leaders of the Labour party have let down their traditional supporters, and they know it. Instead, they have used the strike for their own political ends, just as blatantly as the president of the NUM. They have tried to build up in miners' minds the feeling that it is not a strike against the NCB, but a strike against the Prime Minister and the Tory Government. They know that that is wrong, but they are making political capital at the expense of their supporters' jobs.
Every fair-minded thinking person knows that the generous pay and redundancy terms and the outstanding investment proposed in the industry prove that the Labour Members are wrong, yet Mr. Scargill and the Labour party continue to bluster. Mr. Scargill said recently:
There is increased determination on the part of miners to stay on strike and win this dispute.
That is not true. Mr. Scargill knows that it is not true and today's figures of thousands of miners going back to work prove that it is not true.
The days of bluster and rant by the leadership of the NUM are almost over and it should be the duty of the Labour party, whose conference last year was so much an Arthur Scargill benefit match, to tell the president of the NUM just that. The alternative is to let the industry bleed and to build fear and resentment in the miners who are still on strike, and to leave them with despair and anger.
On behalf of working miners in my constituency, who have a divided union as a result of what has happened, I express anger against the president of the NUM and the spineless Labour Opposition who have supported him. Miners in my area were and are proud of their union, but they see it dragged down, split from top to bottom, sacrificed——

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the rules of debate give you authority to rule that something is repetitious or that an argument has been presented for the second, third or fourth time in a debate. The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) is reading the same Tory brief that other Conservative Members have already read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Alexander: It is perfectly proper to say that miners are being sacrificed on the altar of one man's crusade against the Prime Minister and the Government and that that man is being propped up by violent mobs of pickets.
The Labour party, by giving Mr. Scargill support, is part of the tragedy. As a loyal Opposition, Labour Members should have stood up for democracy and decency in one of their most traditional heartlands. They have let their own people down and they have let the country down. Their motion deserves to fail.

Mr. Dick Douglas: The House cannot negotiate an end to the dispute, but we can focus


attention on what has happened and the public can determine for themselves which party is anxious to get an honourable settlement of the dispute and which party is anxious to exacerbate the dispute to humiliate men and women who have been on strike for 11 months.
I speak only from a constituency point of view, but among the outstanding features of the dispute are the tenacity and loyalty expressed by the communities involved. The men on strike have been fortified by their womenfolk. In my humble opinion, the women have stood behind their men and sustained them. I speak for strike centres at Steelend, Oakley, Blairhall, High Valleyfield, Kincardine and Woodmill.
The leader of the Liberal party came to my constituency, but did not go to one strike centre or near one pit. Yet the Liberal party will be pronouncing on the strike tonight. The SDP Bench is empty. Where is the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) who told us what we should do and what we should tell our people? What is the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) doing talking about courage? My God, if we turned to him for courage we would be hard put to find it. We have seen courage in the mining areas against a management that has violated trust. I believe that Mr. MacGregor was put there to violate trust.
It is the anniversary of a pit closure in my constituency that was caused not by the strike, but because Mr. MacGregor in his American way, said, "I run a decentralised industry." He told the area directors that they must get their share of a 4-million tonnes cut in production and their share of a reduction in the labour force. We saw that in Dunfermline before the strike began. We saw it in the closure of Bogside. My hon. Friends know that I have probed the reasons for that.
Labour Members have asked for an inquiry into the operation of the coal industry in Scotland. The Government will cast some of the blame on the NUM, but will they give us an investigation into the management of the coal industry in Scotland? Will they let any investigation examine what cut in production Mr. Albert Wheeler had to obtain in Mr. MacGregor's decentralised management?
People who want a settlement of the dispute should look at what the miners had before 6 March. One young man in a strike centre said to me a few weeks ago, "We are on strike for something that we thought we had on 6 March in relation to the review procedure." Are the Government seeking to go back on that procedure? It was an agreement on how collieries would close. The NUM has fought to preserve that.
We could argue from now until doomsday about how to define an uneconomic pit. The situation will be settled only if the parties are willing to get round the table.
The Under-Secretary of State for Energy who is responsible for the coal industry nods his head, but the Secretary of State for Energy had the temerity earlier to ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), in effect, to deliver the NUM, and its leader in particular, to the negotiating table. If the Secretary of State had done so much to try to get a settlement as my right hon. Friend has done, we would have had a settlement long ago. The Secretary of State has spent billions of pounds in fortifying the dispute, but could not spend 10p on a telephone call to bring the parties together.
It may be said that it is within my right hon. Friend's gift to suggest the terms and conditions upon which the NUM executive as a whole would go to the negotiating table, but what terms and conditions can the Minister obtain from Mr. MacGregor? Will the Minister say that he can get Mr. MacGregor to the negotiating table only if the NUM virtually capitulates? Is that what is in his mind? It is a long time since I have been involved in trade union negotiations, but I know that no union worth its salt would put itself in the position that the Minister suggests.
If the Minister wants a solution to the dispute, he and the Secretary of State for Employment should use their good offices to bring the parties together. We are entitled to ask what the Secretary of State's intentions are with regard to the dispute. I think that the Opposition recognise that the dispute has gone on for too long. In my constituency I have played a part in keeping my folk out. It is no good the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland tut-tutting. If he wants to intervene he should get up and speak. I will tell him why I have done that. That is the way to preserve dignity and peace in my community. It is also the way to preserve unity and self-respect. I shall certainly not advise those miners to crawl back. If Conservative Members were in the same position as me, they would, on analysis, give the same advice.
If the Secretary of State wants a solution instead of acrimony and if he does not want to humiliate people, particularly in Scotland, he will get the parties round the table. But if he wants bitterness and strife, they are also in his gift. I for one will not advise my folk to go back to work. They came out together, and they will go back together. That is the prescription for unity, understanding and self-respect in my area. The Under-Secretary of State keeps interrupting from a sedentary position, but he is not the Scottish Minister responsible for industry—because that Minister has not been present—and there are not many pits in Argyll.
We are arguing about the cohesion and dignity of our people. Against a background of colossal and rising unemployment in Dunfermline and Fife generally, my miners fear that if they lose their jobs there will be no other jobs to go to. Of course, we have had pit closures which have been negotiated. I was unhappy about some of them, but they were negotiated against a background of sustained employment in the area. However, if pits close now there is no alternative employment. Unemployment is high in those areas, and is growing under this Government.
I say to Conservative Members that the nation must judge who really wants an honourable and dignified solution to the dispute. I passionately want that, but I also want everyone to go back. I do not want people to be dismissed, potentially for life, because of the action that they took on picket lines. I want dignity and understanding, and I want my folk to realise that to preserve that, they must stay united and stay out until the Government bring the parties round the table and obtain a solution.

Mr. James Wallace: The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) comes from a mining constituency and spoke with some of the passion that has been a hallmark of many of the speeches made so far. He referred to the bitterness and strife that have also regrettably been a hallmark of the dispute.
Perhaps not surprisingly, but nevertheless regrettably, that bitterness and strife have often been reflected in the debate.
Recrimination, or going over the history, is no way forward to the solution that all of us want. I do not believe for a moment that recriminations can do the future of the coal industry any good. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West, referred to the difficulties of unemployment in Fife. That cannot have been helped by yesterday's announcement of the closure of Frances colliery, at a cost of about 500 jobs. But the recriminations have already started.
Albert Wheeler, the Scottish director of the coal board, has blamed the striking miners who, he has claimed, gave the board little or no assistance to control an underground fire. In response, a union official has said that the board did not approach the union until Thursday about undertaking work that could have saved the coal face, and that after the union had offered to start preparatory work, the NCB refused to meet it. I am in no position to judge whose version is closest to the truth, but I know that a failure to establish and build upon a community of interest — an interest that must be shared by both employees and management—has led to the loss of that pit and that recriminations will not repair the damage——

Mr. John Home Robertson: rose——

Mr. Wallace: I would normally give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to be brief so that other hon. Members can speak.
The continued dispute can only increase the likelihood of such damage being repeated elsewhere. Would that this House could help to foster that community of interest as much as it emphasises division. I believe that there must be a community of interest. Because of our resources of coal, it must play a major role in supplying our long-term energy needs. As a result of the dispute the industry faces dangers from the loss of coal faces and because the coal-firing scheme that was so successful in 1983 has—I am sure that the Minister will confirm this—been nowhere near as successful in 1984 for industrialists wishing to convert from oil to coal.
The dispute has also been an absolute gift to those who propose further expansion of the nuclear industry. Many of us who fear that further expansion and who are very cautious about it because of the understandable questions hanging over safety and the environment, feel that the continuation of the dispute serves only to strengthen the hand of those who would like greater dependence on nuclear energy. Recriminations cannot bring the dispute to an end. We must seek ways of finding that common ground.
There are two further unacceptable ways of ending the dispute. First, it would be unacceptable to pin everything on a gradual return to work. That could be only a very ragged way of proceeding. As has been said, it ultimately would not succeed, because significant pockets of miners throughout the country would not go back. Secondly, it would be wholly unacceptable to bring about an end to the dispute by crowing about victory wrought at the expense of rubbing the miners' noses in the dust. I regret that one or two Conservative Members have said that that might be acceptable to them. I hope that that is not generally true of them. Indeed, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) said that talk of victory would not help the way

forward. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has said that we must seek a decent and honourable settlement, and we should be considering how to achieve such a settlement.
The Labour party's motion welcomes the NUM's decision to seek immediate resumption of negotiations with the NCB without any preconditions. On the radio this morning, the president of the NUM said that he would not be party to an agreement that took economic considerations into account. That must be termed a precondition and makes any further meaningful negotiations a non-starter. It is not a radical departure to suggest that economic considerations should be brought into play. Reference has already been made to the Coal Industry Act 1977. The leader of the Labour party has said that commercial considerations must now be taken into account.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), when he was Secretary of State for Energy, said:
I have never found the NUM in any way unreasonable where closures are necessary because of exhaustion or because pits are out of line in economic terms." — [Official Report, 4 December 1978; Vol. 959, c. 1015–6.]
Economic conditions must be high on the agenda and there must be meaningful discussions on how to determine the future of pits which are said to be uneconomic.
The NACODS agreement did allow for some review. It is essential for any negotiations about pits which the coal board regards as uneconomic to include full consultation at local level. Each pit depends upon its local conditions, geology and social conditions. Management or diktat from the centre in London cannot guarantee the stability of the coal industry.

Mr. Cambell-Savours: Which way will the hon. Gentleman vote?

Mr. Wallace: If the hon. Gentleman waits, he will learn.
At one stage during exchanges between the two Front Benches, I thought that there was a meeting of minds but there was a problem of semantics. "Plan for Coal" says:
Some pits will have to close as their useful economic reserves of coal are depleted.
That item must be on the agenda. I should welcome it if the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) could assure the House that he and his right hon. Friends have brought influence to bear on the NUM to accept that.
Obviously, some pits with uneconomic capacity will be withdrawn from production, but there is a future for the coal industry. We must have new capacity through new investment. We welcome the assurance that more funds will be made available to National Coal Board Enterprises Ltd., but that is not all that is required.
It is said that the Labour movement closed about 300 pits, but that was when there was more employment. The fear in mining communities today is that the pit closures are taking place at a time of very high unemployment. The recession which brought about the fall in demand for coal also makes the miners afraid for their jobs and for their families. The failure of the Conservative Government to acknowledge that that is what is causing the fears in the mining areas means that we shall not be able to support them in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Bill Walker: We are left wondering exactly what the Liberal party's position is. It is certain that they are standing in the middle of the road again and will probably be run down.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), who spoke with such passion, said that the strike had gone on far too long. I agree with him. Anyone who has studied the mining communities and the miners will be in no doubt that they are among the finest people in the country. They are loyal and dedicated, and believe in what they are doing. The sad thing is that this time, as once before, to their regret, they are not speaking and acting with one voice. One must ask why.
I can accept that in some instances one can describe a few people as scabs. As an ex-trade unionist I understand the language. But to describe a substantial number as scabs in unrealistic. I was a member of the Transport and General Workers Union and proud to be so.
I feel sad about the whole business. We should be maximising our skills instead of fighting amongst ourselves. We should be asking why so many miners are unwilling to follow their leadership. That is the question which should be asked in the mining communities. If the miners' case is so good, and believed to be so good, why was the leadership unable to convince so many of its own active members? We are not talking about individuals who are inactive in the union, but about members who are active. What is wrong?
Opposition Members should be considering how the NUM executive has handled the affair. No one can get any pleasure out of watching one of our finest unions destroying itself. I get no pleasure from that —[Interruption.] Opposition Members can make as much noise as they like, but I get no pleasure from such an event. The country needs trade unions that are responsible and organised, in the same way as it needs responsible and organised management. We cannot run a modern democratic country without a balance.
What has brought about the present situation? On occasions during the dispute any reasonable person would have thought that there was a solution. In the past an answer would have been found.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West suggested an inquiry into the way in which the coal board has been run in Scotland. I am certain that within the NUM an inquiry will take place into the way in which the executive has handled the dispute. That will come about because the ordinary members who are dissatisfied with the outcome, the protracted nature of the strike and the awful suffering that it has caused will ask, "What went wrong? Why didn't we have some answers? Why, when we looked about to find a solution, didn't we find one?"
The answer is that the NUM does not have the calibre of leadership that it enjoyed in the past. It does not have the quality of conciliation that it has enjoyed in the past. I go further, it does not have the people with the political nous to know that one does not make political speeches in the middle of a delicate strike if one is striking about matters with an industrial base.
The great mistake made by the NUM executive was to allow its spokesperson to decide who wears the cap and to misrepresent its case. Its case has been badly misrepresented. It has been presented to the country, the people and the Government as a battle against entrenched

Tory doctrines. — [Interruption.] Opposition Members will have their opportunity, inside and outside the House, to put their views. I am putting the view of people in a non-mining constituency. I have no knowledge of mining, but I understand that when involved in delicate and difficult negotiations one does not stand up and divert attention from the real issue.
I have a high regard for the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). He represents all that is good in industrial relations. I mean that sincerely. Without people of integrity on both sides, there is lack of trust.
The problems really started when the overtime ban was introduced. The problems within the NUM began when the union could not throughout accept the productivity deal. The time when some NUM regions accepted the productivity deal and began to make more money was the opportunity for the high productivity areas to become high income-earning areas.—[Interruption.]
While I know nothing about mining, I have studied the problems of the union. I know something of what goes on inside unions, and it is sad that the leaders of the NUM, who are the real culprits, have led their troops into a disastrous situation. Yet those same people are still making speeches that leave no room for an honourable compromise. There cannot be an honourable compromise when one side is clearly stating that it will not budge an inch.
If Opposition Members genuinely believe, as I am sure they do, that pits with an economic future are being scheduled for closure, they have an alternative. Those pits need not close. They could be taken over as miners' co-operatives, perhaps with some public assistance. I would not argue with that. If it is right to do it in other spheres, why not do it in mining?
The nationalised industry could not make a go of Scott Lithgow and it was taken over. I am not stressing privatisation on this issue. I am simply suggesting that there should be a middle ground on which all concerned—the Government, the NCB and the NUM—can stand comfortably. That will be possible only if we look for realistic and viable avenues or escape routes.
In this ghastly dispute, many people have been sacked because they have broken the law. I judge that that will be a more difficult problem to resolve, in terms of reinstatement, than some of the other issues about which I have spoken. After all, some of the crimes have been hideous. I accept that the more trivial ones should be dealt with in a more trivial way, but the really nasty ones cannot be overlooked.
We cannot ignore the fact that many policemen have been severely injured. The public would never forgive us or the Government if we did not acknowledge that the police, in carrying out the duties that they were instructed to perform—in other words, to maintain law and order—had been injured. Whatever one's view, it must be accepted that the police were doing their job. Nor must we forget that those policemen have families. We in this House have a duty and responsibility to them, particularly those among them who were injured.
That, if we are not careful, will sour the final stages of negotiation. We must watch that problem carefully because I caution hon. Members to reflect that it is unlikely that the public would accept a situation in which men convicted of serious crimes were allowed to demand reinstatement.
I agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West that the dispute has gone on for far too long. It is time that the leadership of the NUM adopted realistic trade union negotiating postures.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Almost a year ago the National Coal Board announced its intention to reduce deep mined coal capacity in Britain by 4 million tonnes. I must at the outset put that in context.
I asked the Library to tell me the year when Britain last deep mined 97 million tonnes of coal. The Library officials had to go into the basement of the building to discover the answer, for the date was 1864. In other words, 121 years of history and sacrifice by miners and their families were threatened to be wiped away by the coal board's announcement on that occasion.
No wonder we have had the bitterest and longest national dispute there has been in this country this century. About 9,000 people have been arrested, 600 sacked and almost 200 put in prison, including the four strike leaders from Keresley colliery, Coventry, last Wednesday. That has all occurred in defence of 70,000 jobs in their own industry and 85,000 jobs which were due to be affected outside the industry by the proposed closure programme. The miners took their action not just for themselves but for the children, the school leavers, of this generation for whom those jobs will disappear, even if the existing miners are able to get transfers to other collieries.
This strike was provoked, and it has been prolonged, by the Tory Cabinet. We have heard of the so-called Ridley plan, a scheme drawn up by the present Secretary of State for Transport in the mid-1970s. It was designed to provoke this strike because at that time he saw the NUM as the main political enemy of a future Tory Government.
We have heard of the preparations that were made for cutting the benefits of starving families, for increasing coal stocks before the strike was provoked, for increasing the oil burn, for increasing the importation of coal, for increasing the use of non-union scab drivers by haulage firms and the use of highly mobile police squads, invented to deal with the dispute. We know of all those developments.
In recent days, however, events have shown that during the dispute the Prime Minister sought politically to intervene in an effort to carry out the real reasons why the strike was provoked—namely, to split the NUM as an effective trade union. Mr. David Hart, a leading adviser of the Prime Minister, said in The Times a few days ago that the main aim of the strike was to gain victory over Arthur Scargill. What is perhaps less well known is Mr. Hart's involvement in setting up the scab organisation, the national working miners' committee, meetings of which he attended on 11, 19, 25 and 28 August.
He, while in the payment of the Prime Minister's office, placed advertisements in the Daily Express, the Daily Mail and The Sunday Times, advertisements which were designed in the offices of Saatchi and Saatchi by Mr. Tim Bell, another adviser to the Prime Minister, the money having been provided by Sir Hector Laing, whose company gave £43,000 to the Tory party last year.
The promotion of the drift back to work by some miners has, throughout the dispute, particularly in the early stages of the strike, represented a Tory propaganda coup designed within No. 10 Downing street. It is clear that the Government bear responsibility for trying to split the

NUM. However, that attempt to demoralise — to fracture, to use a word used by the Secretary of State—and to neuter the trade union movement is the real reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer regards the cost of the strike as a worthwhile investment, paving the way for attacks on other trade unions.
From the Government's point of view, this dispute has nothing to do with economic or uneconomic pits, except perhaps in preparation for the privatisation of parts of the central Midlands coal field. Last year in this Chamber the Secretary of State said that the reason why the Government were trying to tackle the so-called uneconomic capacity of 12 per cent. of the coal fields was to save £275 million. In the last 11 months the Government have spent 20 times that, £5·5 billion, trying to defeat the strike.
Even if the dispute ended tomorrow on the terms set by the Government, everything else being equal, the Government would not be back in an economic position, until the year 2005. Where is the economics in that? Where are savings to be found from what has occurred? That £5·5 billion would have paid for a £25 a week increase in the dole packets of every registered person or for a £4 decrease in every taxpayer's contribution to the Revenue. To put it another way, £100 million—one week's Government spending — is enough to build a hospital, six large comprehensive schools and 1,000 council houses in a town the size of Coventry. The cost of this strike organised by the Government could have provided those much-needed public services for 55 towns the size of Coventry.
The Government and the NCB talk about economics and the need to get rid of uneconomic pits, but the coal board's accounts include the cost of subsidence, mainly in the Mansfield area of Nottinghamshire, the cost of early retirement for miners who have left the industry, interest charges and a rate of return back to the Government twice that of any other industry. If the Minister closed every pit in the country, he would still have to pay compensation for subsidence and early retirement, so those are not genuine costs on the present generation of miners. If those costs are removed from the accounts, instead of a loss of £6·20 per tonne, Cortonwood would show a profit of £5·50 per tonne. The Tories harp on uneconomic pits, but those are the true circumstances.
In the past 11 months I have been proud to be associated with miners and their families and with the other workers — the seamen, the power station workers, the railwaymen—who have supported them. I pay special tribute to the women of the coalfields. In the first week of the dispute Mr. MacGregor said that he would like to hear from the miners' wives. He never said that again. There are now 172 miners' wives support groups throughout the country. The Prime Minister has created—or re-created—a new generation of Socialist men and women in the coalfields. Those people have drawn lessons from the strike. They realise that there is a certain logic in the Government's argument. Since 1979, the Government have closed one factory in five in this country. They have increased unemployment to 3·3 million officially and 5 million in reality. They have reduced investment in manufacturing industry by 27 per cent. If there are fewer factories there is less need for steel and electricity, so there is less need for coal.
The real lesson of the past six years is this. If one thing has been utterly uneconomic for the working people of this country it is the capitalist system over which the Tory


Government preside. The system itself is uneconomic because it cannot afford jobs, homes, schools or hospitals. Under that system, for every £1 invested in Britain £2·50 goes to South Africa, Korea, Brazil and Argentina. For every £1 worth of machinery that wears out only 82p worth is replaced. The Tory solution is to cut the wages of working people, especially youth, so as to restore profits to their gaffers in manufacturing industry. That is why they want to destroy the trade union movement, beginning with the National Union of Mineworkers.
That strategy will not work. Mr. MacGregor was transferred from the British Steel Corporation to the National Coal Board on the personal recommendation of Lord Chapple to the then Secretary of State for Energy, now Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it will not destroy the NUM. One per cent. of the population has held the Government at bay for 11 months. Labour Members and working people are now asking themselves what would have happened if every member of trade unions affiliated to the TUC had given as much support to the miners as the wives and kids in the coalfields have. The Government would not have lasted four weeks. That is the lesson being absorbed by the Labour and trade union movement and it will rebound on the Tory Government in the months and years ahead.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Alex Eadie.

Mr. Lofthouse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the difficulty of the Chair on these occasions, but it may have escaped your notice that there has been no voice from the west Yorkshire coalfield in this debate, and the same seems to have been the case in previous debates. Is it not time that consideration was given to discontinuing the privilege and patronage accorded to Privy Councillors in giving them priority in these debates?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As more than 30 Opposition Members wished to speak, and in view of the content of the debate, would it be possible to arrange a further debate at very short notice?

Mr. Speaker: Fortunately, that is not a matter for me. I have done my best to balance the debate. Privy Councillors have a right to speak, but they have all acceded to my request for brevity. I call Mr. Eadie.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: At the outset of my speech, I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends would like me to mention the role that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) has played in trying to get a negotiated settlement to the dispute. We in the Opposition want to put that on the record for this purpose. If the Secretary of State for Energy had put half the energy that my right hon. Friend has put in to try to resolve the dispute, we would not be debating this costly and damaging industrial dispute tonight.
We are in greater crisis since we last debated the matter in the House of Commons. The miners' funds have been sequestrated and put into the hands of the receiver. To put a trade union in the hands of a receiver is to break the law in a new way.
It is not good for trade unions that they should be brought into contact with the courts, and it is not good for the courts …

but where class issues are involved … it is impossible to pretend that the courts command the same degree of general confidence. On the contrary, they do not, and a very large number of our population have been led to the opinion that they are, unconsciously, no doubt, biassed."—[Official Report. 30 May 1911; Vol. 26, c. 1022.]
If any Conservative Members objects to that, I must inform him that those are not my words, but the words of Sir Winston Churchill in May 1911, in a debate in the House of Commons. He was Home Secretary at that time. His words are evidence of how, since 1911, the clock has turned back and our industrial relations have been polluted in the year of 1985 because the Government's policy ordains that industrial relations be conducted on the streets and picket lines.

Mrs. Currie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Eadie: No, I shall not give way.

Mrs. Currie: rose——

Mr. Eadie: In the last major debate——

Mrs. Currie: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Eadie: In the last major debate that we had on the miners' strike, the Government defended their appointment of Mr. Ian MacGregor. I should like to ask the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary whether the Government are still defending Mr. MacGregor after 11 months of one of the most costly industrial disputes in our industrial history. We said then and we are saying now that the appointment of Mr. MacGregor as chairman of the National Coal Board was a disaster. Not only was it provocative but it was a recipe for industrial conflict. It is even more bizarre now because since we last debated the dispute, Mr. MacGregor has chucked in his hand at trying to explain personally to the media what he is about and his current views, particularly on the miners' strike. Mr. Michael Eaton, the area director in Yorkshire, is the voice that we now hear on radio and the face that we now see on television as the NCB communicator because Mr. MacGregor cannot do it.
I can think of no other parallel in which the head of a nationalised industry is not only allowed to keep his job but has Government support and backing in such circumstances. When we last debated the matter, one of the Government's defences was that they were pursuing a policy of non-intervention in the dispute. We did not believe them; we still do not believe them. That guise and that deception cannot be trailered in today's debate. Not only are they interfering in this dispute, but they are preventing an honourable negotiated settlement. Mr. Geoffrey Kirk, a former public relations officer, who was sacked in November and then reinstated only to refuse his reinstatement, blew the gaff when he described how a consultant from Saatchi and Saatchi, Mr. Tim Bell, had been working with or for Mr. Ian MacGregor and how a Mr. David Hart, a freelance journalist, who apparently is not unknown in the portals of No. 10 Downing Street, has tripped in and out of NCB headquarters.
As an aside I should add that the House observed that, when one of my hon. Friends referred to the article in The Times and asked whether the Government agreed with Mr. Hart's remarks, the Prime Minister nodded yes and the


Secretary of State for Energy nodded no. That is an example of the confusion among the Government Front Bench.
That brings me to Mr. Gordon Reece, the Prime Minister's adviser, who according to Mr. Kirk turned up at a "News at Ten" interview in which the chairman of the NCB was supposed to appear. Is it any wonder that "the Government echo", this invisible man, Mr. Ian MacGregor, keeps his job and gets Government support? The Government can now more openly be identified with interfering in achieving a settlement. The voice of the Prime Minister—a voice which is a triumph of social engineering—and those of her Ministers are evidence of that.
The NUM has stated that it wants to get back to the negotiating table without preconditions.

Mr. Rost: rose——

Mr. Eadie: That would leave either side free to raise or discuss anything. It does not mean that one demands something before one starts. When playing chess, one does not forfeit one's queen the moment the game has started, but that is what the coal board is suggesting. There cannot be written preconditions if one asks for no preconditions before getting to the negotiating table.

Mr. Alexander: A few moments ago the hon. Gentleman referred to the press. Did he see the article in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday stating that of the 22 members of the NUM executive, 12 demanded a ballot before there should be a strike? The hon. Gentleman is a member of that executive. Did he support that call?

Mr. Eadie: I do not read the Daily Telegraph. However, if it has not dawned on the hon. Gentleman, I remind him that this dispute has continued for 11 months. To talk at this stage about a ballot, when we should be talking about a negotiated settlement, is completely irresponsible.
The House must be made aware of the origin of the phrase "no preconditions" as a basis for settling the dispute. It did not come from the NUM or the Labour party but from the NCB last year through the mouth of its chairman. Now that they have it, neither the NCB nor the Government want to know.
Another aspect of the dispute, the negotiating team, must be mentioned. The board called for changes in it. More than a fortnight ago the national executive of the NUM decided that the whole national executive would comprise the negotiating team. After both suggestions were carried out, derision was heaped from many quarters on the prospect of the entire national executive being involved, as if it was the first time that it had happened. However, it happened in 1972.

Mr. Rost: rose——

Mr. Eadie: The dispute could have been settled three times but for Government intervention, and the Secretary of State knows that. If all parties could get round the negotiating table, we could resolve the dispute within 24 hours. There is a good precedent for that. I was present in 1972, when the national executive spent most of the day at the Department of Employment with the then Secretary of State.

Mr. Rost: rose——

Mr. Eadie: The day culminated with all of us going to 10 Downing street where the dispute was settled. There

was no tea and sandwiches because it was too late, but we got what we do not have now. All parties were willing to resolve the dispute, but then that was before the Conservative party was hijacked by the Thatcherite militant tendency. That was before the day when a Conservative Prime Minister boasted that she wanted to be known as the Prime Minister who broke the consensus in British politics. Confrontation not conciliation is one of our images of the Government. All the evidence shows that the NCB, at the Government's diktat, scuppered attempts to start negotiations last week and at the beginning of this week.
I have full copies of the correspondence that took place last week when the forerunner meeting to the entire national executive negotiating team was in London. There was a meeting between Mr. Peter Heathfield and Ned Smith, who works in industrial relations at the NCB, which lasted nearly four hours. They agreed on the parameters that could lead to negotiations being resumed and the strike being settled. However, eventually Mr. Ned Smith was dropped from the negotiating team, despite his willingness to see the negotiations through to a conclusion. He had given notice to leave the employ of the NCB in January. The allegation is that the NCB, with Government connivance, ratted on the parameters agreed by Peter Heathfield and Ned Smith.

Mr. Rost: rose——

Mr. Eadie: I have evidence. The NUM was informed that the replacement was to be Mr. Merrik Spanton. He asked for an informal meeting on Tuesday 29 January. At that meeting all the ground that had already been covered with Ned Smith had to be gone over again. After three hours they had managed to draft an agenda, but then Mr. Spanton was called to the telephone, in the same room, and after his telephone conversation he changed his mind. The general secretary of the NUM had to take back the agenda that had been drafted.
Then we had what were described as talks about talks by post, despite the fact that all parties were in London to talk and reach an honourable negotiated settlement. It is absurd that Mr. Spanton should have written in a letter of 30 January that the National Coal Board had no way of recollecting the content of the agenda drawn up by him and Peter Heathfield, and asking that the agenda be forwarded again. His letter also stated that the talks had to include uneconomic capacity. There were four NCB representatives in that room, yet they claimed that they could not recall what was on the draft agenda. I refuse to believe that. They are not stupid men. I know some of them—[Laughter.] I know some of them, and may I say that Britain has the finest mining engineers. It is despicable that the Government should betray men in the way that I have described. I repeat that they are not stupid men, but they were forced to look stupid by superiors who want not a negotiated settlement, but nothing less than complete victory over the striking miners and the NUM.
However, the NUM was not to be deterred. On Friday 1 February, it submitted another agenda as a basis for resuming negotiations. The agenda had five points, the first of which related to "Plan for Coal". The agenda stated:
This proposal is based upon previous submissions by the Board which have been accepted by the Union.
There can be no argument about that. I speak with some authority, because I am a co-author of "Plan for Coal".
Incidentally, although "Plan for Coal" provides for the closure of pits, it also deals with new capacity and new pits. Not one pit has been sunk during the lifetime of this Government. Without new pits, the industry will inevitably contract.
The second point on the agenda dealt with the future of collieries units. The House should pay close attention to this agenda, because it could be the basis of negotiations. The NUM stated:
The Union's proposal takes account of the Board's own suggestions when we met with ACAS. This would provide for all matters relating to the future of Collieries Units to be dealt with in accordance with procedures operating prior to 6 March 1984"—
on television, Mr. Eaton gilded the lily on the next point—
and of course the Union have previously accepted an amendment to the procedures to provide for an Independent Review Body, and we feel that the broad recognition given to this proposal during informal discussions could lead to agreement in negotiations.
The third point on the agenda is about the five collieries, which have been mentioned in the debate. It says:
The Union's proposal accepts that these five pits remain within the procedure on the understanding that undertakings given by the Board within the Procedure will be honoured. This new proposal also provides for any unforeseen major mining problems to be discussed in the normal way, and we feel this point is manifestly fair and sensible.
The 6 March proposals have also been mentioned in the debate, and they are the fourth point on the agenda, which says:
The Union's proposal is, of course, a statement on the present situation and has been publicly acknowledged by the Board's spokesman, Mr. Eaton, in an Independent Radio News interview on 31st January.
From that there was the initiative about the 4 million-tonne capacity which is now out of date because it is doubtful that the industry could get back to 1 million tonnes once work begins. There is no argument about that.
There is then the problem of the amnesty. I understand that Mr. MacGregor has been running around the coal fields saying that only over his dead body will an amnesty be given. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said. He was not being so hard. He said that there were difficulties, as there are, but for the chairman of the NCB to say what he did is irresponsible.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Breach of the peace. Law breakers.

Mr. Eadie: I feel emotional about this matter because my father was a mining leader in 1926 and for eight years he was victimised because he was associated with the struggle to win recognition for the mining union.

Mr. Bruinvels: rose——

Mr. Eadie: The union agenda says about the amnesty:
It is inconceivable that in any discussions leading to a resolution of this dispute that the question of dealing with those men who have been dismissed in the course of the dispute cannot be a matter for discussion between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers.
That is what Peter Heathfield said, and that is why I said that there was dirty work at the crossroads involving Ned Smith. Mr. Heathfield continues:
in my meeting with Mr. Smith on the 21st January, it was acknowledged that the Union would pursue this matter when negotiations resumed.

We are not breaking new ground with this. The NUM proposals continue:
It seems a matter of equity that the same principle applied in 1972 and 1974 be applied in the current situation.
There are already established procedures.

Mr. Peter Walker: As the hon. Gentleman has just given the impression that Mr. Ned Smith implied some approval on the point about the amnesty, I shall read out the minutes of the meeting between Ned Smith and Mr. Heathfield. The words are as follows:
The NUM representatives said that they thought that part of any settlement would have to be related to discussion on that amnesty. The Board's representatives said that this would not be acceptable to the Board.

Mr. Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman is gilding the lily a bit again. I have the minutes from Mr. Ned Smith. They say that there was disagreement but, nevertheless, negotiations without preconditions means that both the NUM and the NCB can put anything that they like on the agenda. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know the meaning of the words "no preconditions", I suggest that he consults a dictionary.
The Secretary of State was embarrassed today, and almost started arguing with himself. I hope that we shall get an answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Energy who is to wind up. He will have to answer categorically the question put to him: is the NACODS agreement now being scuppered? Is it now in tatters as a consequence of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East said? Mr. Spanton would not give an assurance to Mr. McNestry this afternoon. If the Under-Secretary can say that the NACODS agreement is sacrosanct, why does the NCB want the NUM to write a script saying that it agrees to economic closures? The hon. Gentleman is impaled on his own statement. It is not necessary to have it.

Mr. Peter Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman, as a member of the NUM executive, approve of the NACODS settlement?

Mr. Eadie: When the Secretary of State tells me that the NACODS settlement is sacrosanct, he will get the answer that he wants—or the answer that he thinks he wants.

Mr. Peter Walker: rose——

Mr. Eadie: I am telling the right hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Peter Walker: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that this is getting a bit personalised.

Mr. Eadie: I am not personalising it, Mr. Speaker. I am treating the right hon. Gentleman as the Secretary of State for Energy, who is responsible for these matters. All I say to him is that he or his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary should say whether the NACODS agreement is sacrosanct. Mr. McNestry does not believe that it is. Over the weekend Mr. McNestry said that if the NCB insisted that the NUM must write a script on economic closures, the agreement that his union had entered into with the National Coal Board was in absolute tatters. I think that I have demonstrated that.
We talk about there being no preconditions. But what has come to light is that negotiations have been scuppered by the NCB, I suspect with Government connivance.
The NUM went to see ACAS, but I understand that a statement was issued by the NCB. This is how we conduct industrial relations nowadays: ACAS went to the NCB to see whether it could make a contribution towards resolving the strike, but before it got there, the board issued a statement saying:
The Board stress that until the NUM firmly indicate in writing that they have changed their position on this main issue facing the industry, any talk of resuming negotiations would only be raising false hopes.
I have trailered the negotiations to the House. If there is no response to the proposals that I have outlined fairly and accurately, it will become clear that the NCB strategy, with the support of the Prime Minister, is that it wants total victory against and humiliation for the NUM. It wants to starve the miners into submission, because it must be aware of the hunger and starvation already in the coalfields. Gas and electricity supplies are being cut off. Bairns are having difficulty in getting clothes and footwear. There are financial problems—[Laughter.]—when it comes to burying the dead. That is nothing to laugh at.
I can best illustrate the present course of events by reminding the House of the Vietnam war and President Johnson, who was not the worst President that the United States has had, in my view. He was a kindly man, and he was deeply wounded by the cry in parts of his country: "Hey, hey, LBJ. How many kids have you killed today?"
If the Government adopt a strategy of starvation and misery, the cries of the starving in mining areas will be, "Hey, hey, Maggie May. How many kids have you starved today?" Victory for the NCB and the Government is unacceptable. We believe that the British people want, and we demand from the Government, a principled, honourable and negotiated settlement of the dispute which has cost the nation and miners so dear.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): I hope that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) is ashamed of what he said. I should have thought that all the years he has spent in negotiations and industrial relations — nobody has doubted his commitment to the great coal industry — would have led him not to make the quite provocative speech that he made today.
I have listened with interest and attention to all of those who have spoken. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) said, this is the debate that was never supposed to take place, but it has. I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that the nightmare will shortly be over, because the debate, as he would know if he had attended it throughout, has shown that opinion in the House, like opinion throughout the country, is united in calling on the NUM leadership to change its stance and to come and talk realistically to the NCB. The House is also united in condemning the tactics that miners' leaders have condoned and encouraged in pursuit of the strike. The only dissenting voices in the country and among the miners and in the House have been the militant ones. They are a small and increasingly isolated minority. Their message holds no future for this great industry and they will not succeed.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) said, this is a strike that should never have happened. There would never have been a strike if there had been a

national ballot in accordance with the NUM's democratic traditions and that union's rule 43, which provides that a national strike shall be entered upon only as a result of a ballot vote of members. [Interruption.] Opposition Members might try to shout me down but the truth will out. Like everyone else, they know that there would have been no strike if there had been a ballot. That was amply demonstrated by NUM areas which held their own ballots. They voted overwhelmingly against strike action and in favour of continuing to work for the future of their industry.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hunt: No.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) and others are rightly proud of their constituents who have gone to work in the face of the most disgraceful scenes of mobs and intimidation.
This is the first time in our lifetime that the NUM has called a strike without a ballot. The Labour Front Bench know what a disgrace and a stain that is upon that union's great record. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) stressed that point.
But occasionally the Opposition have had the courage to say so. At the start of the dispute the Leader of the Opposition called for a ballot. So did the deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Indeed, many Opposition Members referred to the lack of a ballot. This theme has been evident throughout the debate. In April the Leader of the Opposition said that if he had been a member of the NUM executive he would have been favour of a national ballot. But it was a timid approach. It did not cut any ice with Arthur Scargill. Rather like an individual who has tried to interefere with the course of history, Arthur Scargill roared and the Leader of the Opposition quickly left the stage. Shakespeare had a stage direction for it: "Exit pursued by a bear". Appearing with Arthur Scargill at the Durham miners gala, the Leader of the Opposition said, "There is no alternative but to fight." The right hon. Gentleman decided that, as the NUM had taken no notice at all of his views he would drop them. What a shamefaced attitude for the Leader of the Opposition to adopt.
However, the right hon. Gentleman has come back on to the stage. Last Friday, he tentatively suggested on the "Today" programme that commercial considerations had a part to play. I shall turn to that point in a moment. If only the right hon. Gentleman had had the courage at the start of the strike to call for a ballot, the strike would not have happened. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe and many other hon. Members referred during the debate to Mr. Ottey's explanation of what happened at that first meeting.

Mr. Eadie: rose——

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Member for Midlothian knows what happened at that meeting. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will intervene and correct me if I am wrong and if Mr. Ottey is wrong. Mr. Ottey quoted Mr. Morgan, the general secretary of the cokemen, as saying at that meeting, "If I had the confidence that a ballot would go the right way, I would vote for it." What a disgraceful comment. Mr. Wadsworth, one of the leaders of the NUM in Yorkshire, said recently on breakfast television, "The reason we did not have a ballot was because we knew we


would not win it." Talk about plotting, as the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire) talked about plotting at the start of the dispute! 'I hope the House will agree with Mr. Ottey who said that the meeting was "an outstanding betrayal of the miners' constitutional rights". Those are not my words, but the words of a man who spent 45 years in the mining industry and who for 18 years was a member of the national executive.
Miners know that this strike should never have happened and, denied a ballot, miners have voted with their feet. More than 81,000 members of the NUM — over 43 per cent. of its membership—are no longer on strike. Since the start of this year over 13,000 miners have left the strike. Today, communicating a message that, sadly, the Opposition do not seem ready to hear, over 2,300 members of the NUM—a record number—have voted with their feet. Over 30,000 miners have returned to work since the negotiations broke down. In that time the NUM has not changed its position. When will it ever learn?
It is time the strike was over. Of course we agree with the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), but, as many hon. Members have said, we have had seven rounds of negotiations lasting over 175 hours and we have a right to ask: why have the negotiations failed? The answer is that the NUM has refused to acknowledge that the cost of production is an important factor in decisions about the industry.
I refer again to the Leader of the Opposition's words: "including commercial considerations". Arthur Scargill went on the same programme soon afterwards and was given the opportunity to say whether he agreed with the Leader of the Opposition. If he had said, "Yes, commercial considerations have always counted," the strike would now be over. Everybody knows that. But he did not. He said that the Leader of the Opposition must answer for what he said.
This has been a rather artificial debate in some ways. It has been acknowledged by almost every speaker that economic considerations have always played a part. That has been the underlying theme throughout the debate. I do not need to echo the words of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). Everybody knows that economic considerations have always counted. It was the then right hon. Member for Newton who, when he was Labour Minister for Power in 1965, said:
The industry has made great strides in mechanisation, efficiency and productivity. A substantial part of it has relatively low costs. It is, however, carrying the burden of a good deal of uneconomic production that can become—indeed, has become—a threat to the industry itself … this huge on-cost of uneconomic coal is one of the greatest threats to the prosperity of the whole industry.
That was a Labour Minister. He continued:
the coal industry is weighed down by a part of it that is uneconomic and because of this coal is in danger of losing markets".
He asked the House this question:
Why should the good pits be dragged down?"—[Official Report, 25 November 1965; Vol. 721, c. 780, 883–84.]
The same question applies today. Why should the good pits be dragged down by those which are uneconomic?

Mr. Hardy: The Minister has just asked the House a question, but will he answer the question that I put to him? Will he categorically assure the House that the NUM will

not be expected to agree to the closure of collieries in advance of the colliery review procedure or in advance of the consideration which is pledged for independent construction?

Mr. Hunt: I shall give the hon. Gentleman that categoric assurance. I shall amplify that in a moment.
In 1966, the Minister for Power, the then right hon. Member for Greenwich, said something which is relevant to our debate tonight:
the greatest threat to the future of the industry would be any attempt to average up the cost of economic low cost pits to subsidise pits which can only be a burden on the economy in general and the coal industry in particular."—[Official Report, 20 May 1966; Vol. 728, c. 1849.]
Those statements were made by Labour Ministers. The industry faces the same problem today. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) knows about the 22 pits which were closed when he was responsible for the industry. The right hon. Gentleman is an expert on the closure of pits. I could reel off a long list. I could ask the right hon. Gentleman about Graig Merthyr, which had three or four years' resources left; I could ask him about Langwith, which had 1·5 million tonnes left. The right hon. Gentleman ignores the points that I make, but he ignores them at his peril.

Mr. David Steel: Is not one of the difficulties about the superficial attraction of negotiations without preconditions the statement of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on Tuesday:
not a single pit in Britain is uneconomic".—[Official Report, 29 January 1985; Vol. 72, c. 154.]?

Mr. Hunt: I completely agree. I wish that the debate could have taken place against a background of renewed negotiations, leading quickly to a constructive, realistic, negotiated settlement. I am sure that I speak for many hon. Members when I say that. No one wishes to see a negotiated settlement more than the Government; I stress that fact to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot).
Hon. Members have asked that there should be more give from the NCB. But the story of the dispute is that it has been all give by the NCB and all take by the NUM. In seven rounds of negotiations, lasting 175 hours, the NCB has given and the NUM has taken.

Mr. Rost: Is my hon. Friend aware that a few minutes ago, Mr. Arthur Scargill, interviewed on the BBC television programme "Panorama" said yet again that he was not prepared to talk to the NCB about the closure of uneconomic pits? How can we have a negotiated settlement?

Mr. Hunt: We ask ourselves where the true debate is taking place. If only Opposition leaders were to engage in discussions with the president of the NUM and explain to him the economic facts of life, the dispute would be over.
The hon. Member for Midlothian quoted many documents, but the problem in the dispute has been that, although the NUM has sent documents in writing and has said things on television and face to face, every time the president has said anything about the dispute he has said that uneconomic pits must stay open. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Of course he has. The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) said that Mr. Scargill carries out the wishes of the NUM executive. Mr. Scargill said on the "Today" programme this morning:


 What we are saying is that we are not being parties to an agreement that accepts the closure of pits on economic grounds." He shut the door on any possibility of negotiations.

Mr. Barron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hunt: Just a moment.
Later in the interview, Mr. Scargill said:
We haven't got any demands on the negotiating table.
Yet he had just made the demand that stopped negotiations from the start.
We have had discussions at ACAS and we have had a just and honourable settlement with NACODS. We have seen these discussions take place. The hon. Member for Wentworth asked me to deal with that point. Let me make it quite clear that the NACODS agreement, which provided, inter alia, for the enhancement and improvement of the industry's established colliery review procedure, stands in full. It was there on the table for the NUM to accept last October and the union rejected it. It is still there today.
If the NUM moves its position and is willing to withdraw the unreasonable demand that there should be no closure of uneconomic pits, there can be a negotiated settlement. All that the leadership of the NUM has to agree is that the closure of uneconomic pits should be included in the first item on the agenda for negotiations. That was conspicuously absent from the agenda that the hon. Member for Midlothian read out. So far, they have refused to agree.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Hunt: I shall not give way, as this is an important point.
If the Leader of the Opposition or the TUC can persuade the president of the NUM to accept an agenda that deals with the issue that Mr. Scargill has made the main issue of the dispute and can accept the reality of the situation, the dispute will end, just as it could have done last October, last July and, indeed, last March, before it had even started. I hope that I have made that absolutely clear.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Hunt: The Leader of the Opposition shouted to me about the NACODS agreement, and I should make it clear that, if the NACODS agreement is accepted, there will of course be no need for any written undertakings. It is a written agreement and can be accepted by the NUM. It has always been on the table.

Mr. Douglas: What the Under-Secretary of State is saying is very important. Are we to take it that the suggestion put forward from the Dispatch Box is deliverable by him through the NCB, and that there will be no request to the NUM to give a written undertaking to the NCB in that regard?

Mr. Hunt: I have made it quite clear and will repeat again that if the NUM wishes to accept the NACODS agreement, there is no need for any written undertakings of any sort. I have made that absolutely clear —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are coming towards the end of a very important debate.

Mr. Hunt: I can only say that it seems clear that the Opposition Front Bench does not want a settlement. The approach of the Government and of the NCB towards the coal industry has been enormously positive. It is curious

that no hon. Member has said in the debate that the NCB's offer is not sufficiently generous. No one has questioned the generosity of the offer secured for the NCB by this Prime Minister, this Secretary of State and this Government underwriting the most generous offer to miners since nationalisation.
Let those in communication with the leader of the NUM get straight on the telephone to him to try to talk some sense into the NUM so that we can obtain an end to the dispute. Today we have heard of a record number of miners voting with their feet. They have been denied a ballot. They had no other course open to them and they have now voted with their feet. When will the president of the NUM listen? Seven rounds of negotiations have foundered on the refusal of the NUM's leadership to recognise the crucial reality that was implicit in almost every speech today. I have just one message for those who care—as we all do—for this great coal industry. The Government will not let down the miners. Miners who have worked and who are returning to work every day have shown their loyalty to the industry. They have kept faith with the coal industry and we intend to keep faith with them.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe said, there are, of course, no winners in the dispute. Yet the tragedy is still being played out. Mr. Scargill seems set to fight to the bitter end, but has not the bitter end come? Can he ignore any longer the relentless tread of his members returning to work? Today's record number of returns once again highlights the growing dissatisfaction with his leadership. When will he listen to the rising tide of opinion? [Interruption.] When will he settle on the reasonable terms available to him so that this tragic, pointless and damaging dispute, for which there was never any industrial justification, can be brought to an end? The message is that moderation——

Mr. Michael Cocks: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 378.

Division No. 87]
[10 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Brown, Ron (E'burgh Leith)


Anderson, Donald
Buchan, Norman


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Caborn, Richard


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Ian


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Canavan, Dennis


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Barnett, Guy
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Thomas


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Clay, Robert


Bell, Stuart
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Benn, Tony
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Cohen, Harry


Bermingham, Gerald
Coleman, Donald


Bidwell, Sydney
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Blair, Anthony
Conlan, Bernard


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Boyes, Roland
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Bray, Dr Jeremy


Corbyn, Jeremy


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Cowans, Harry


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Craigen, J. M.






Crowther, Stan
McTaggart, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McWilliam, John


Cunningham, Dr John
Madden, Max


Dalyell, Tam
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Maxton, John


Deakins, Eric
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dewar, Donald
Meacher, Michael


Dixon, Donald
Michie, William


Dobson, Frank
Mikardo, Ian


Dormand, Jack
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Douglas, Dick
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Dubs, Alfred
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Eadie, Alex
Nellist, David


Eastham, Ken
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
O'Brien, William


Ellis, Raymond
O'Neill, Martin


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Ewing, Harry
Park, George


Fatchett, Derek
Parry, Robert


Faulds, Andrew
Patchett, Terry


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Pavitt, Laurie


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Pendry, Tom


Fisher, Mark
Pike, Peter


Flannery, Martin
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Prescott, John


Forrester, John
Radice, Giles


Foster, Derek
Randall, Stuart


Foulkes, George
Redmond, M.


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Richardson, Ms Jo


Garrett, W. E.
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


George, Bruce
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Robertson, George




Godman, Dr Norman
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Golding, John
Rogers, Allan


Gould, Bryan
Rooker, J. W.


Gourley, Harry
Rowlands, Ted


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Ryman, John


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hardy, Peter
Sheerman, Barry


Harman, Ms Harriet
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Short, Mrs R. (W'hampt'n NE)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Heffer, Eric S.
Skinner, Dennis


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Home Robertson, John
Snape, Peter


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Soley, Clive


Hoyle, Douglas
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Straw, Jack


Janner, Hon Greville
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


John, Brynmor
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Tinn, James


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Torney, Tom


Lambie, David
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lamond, James
Wareing, Robert


Leadbitter, Ted
Weetch, Ken


Leighton, Ronald
Welsh, Michael


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
White, James


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Wigley, Dafydd


Litherland, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wilson, Gordon


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Winnick, David


Loyden, Edward
Woodall, Alec


McCartney, Hugh
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McGuire, Michael



McKelvey, William
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Mr. Frank Haynes and


McNamara, Kevin
Mr. Allen McKay.





NOES


Adley, Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Aitken, Jonathan
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Alexander, Richard
Dover, Den


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Alton, David
Dunn, Robert


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Durant, Tony


Amess, David
Dykes, Hugh


Ancram, Michael
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Arnold, Tom
Eggar, Tim


Ashby, David
Emery, Sir Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Evennett, David


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Fallon, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Farr, Sir John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Baldry, Tony
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fletcher, Alexander


Batiste, Spencer
Fookes, Miss Janet


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forman, Nigel


Beith, A. J.
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bellingham, Henry
Forth, Eric


Bendall, Vivian
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic
Fox, Marcus


Benyon, William
Franks, Cecil


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Freeman, Roger


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Freud, Clement


Blackburn, John
Fry, Peter


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gale, Roger


Body, Richard


Galley, Roy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bottomley, Peter
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Glyn, Dr Alan


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Goodlad, Alastair


Bright, Graham
Gorst, John


Brinton, Tim
Gow, Ian


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brooke, Hon Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Greenway, Harry


Browne, John
Gregory, Conal


Bruce, Malcolm
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bruinvels, Peter
Grist, Ian


Bryan, Sir Paul
Ground, Patrick


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Grylls, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Gummer, John Selwyn


Budgen, Nick
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butcher, John
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Butler, Hon Adam
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hannam, John


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Carttiss, Michael
Harvey, Robert


Cartwright, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Cash, William
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Chapman, Sydney
Hayes, J.


Chope, Christopher
Hayhoe, Barney


Churchill, W. S.
Hayward, Robert


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heddle, John


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Henderson, Barry


Cockeram, Eric
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Hickmet, Richard


Coombs, Simon
Hicks, Robert


Cope, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cormack, Patrick
Hill, James


Carrie, John
Hind, Kenneth


Couchman, James
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Critchley, Julian
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Crouch, David
Holt, Richard


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howard, Michael


Dicks, Terry
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)






Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Mudd, David


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Murphy, Christopher


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Neale, Gerrard


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Nelson, Anthony


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Neubert, Michael


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Newton, Tony


Hunter, Andrew
Nicholls, Patrick


Irving, Charles
Normanton, Tom


Jackson, Robert
Norris, Steven


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Onslow, Cranley


Jessel, Toby
Oppenheim, Phillip


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Johnston, Russell
Osborn, Sir John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ottaway, Richard


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Kennedy, Charles
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Parris, Matthew


Key, Robert
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Patten, John (Oxford)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Pattie, Geoffrey


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Pawsey, James


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Knowles, Michael
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Knox, David
Pollock, Alexander


Lamont, Norman
Porter, Barry


Lang, Ian
Portillo, Michael


Latham, Michael
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Powell, William (Corby)


Lawrence, Ivan
Powley, John


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Price, Sir David


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lester, Jim
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Raffan, Keith


Lightbown, David
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Lilley, Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Renton, Tim


Lord, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Lyell, Nicholas
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


McCrindle, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Macfarlane, Neil
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


MacGregor, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Maclean, David John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)




Maclennan, Robert
Rossi, Sir Hugh


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Rost, Peter


Madel, David
Rowe, Andrew


Major, John
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Malins, Humfrey
Ryder, Richard


Malone, Gerald
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Maples, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Marland, Paul
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Marlow, Antony
Sayeed, Jonathan


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Scott, Nicholas


Mates, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)




Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Meadowcroft, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Mellor, David
Shersby, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Silvester, Fred


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sims, Roger


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Miscampbell, Norman
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Moate, Roger
Speed, Keith


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Speller, Tony


Monro, Sir Hector
Spence, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Spencer, Derek


Moore, John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Squire, Robin


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moynihan, Hon C.


Steel, Rt Hon David





Steen, Anthony
Wainwright, R.


Stern, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Walden, George


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Wallace, James


Stokes, John
Waller, Gary


Stradling Thomas, J.
Walters, Dennis


Sumberg, David
Ward, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Warren, Kenneth


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Watson, John


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Watts, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Terlezki, Stefan
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Wheeler, John


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Whitfield, John


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Whitney, Raymond


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thornton, Malcolm
Wilkinson, John


Thurnham, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wood, Timothy


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Woodcock, Michael


Tracey, Richard
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Trippier, David
Yeo, Tim


Trotter, Neville
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Twinn, Dr Ian
Younger, Rt Hon George


van Straubenzee, Sir W.



Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Tellers for the Noes:


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Carol Mather and


Waddington, David
Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 360, Noes 200.

Division No. 88]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Brinton, Tim


Aitken, Jonathan
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Alexander, Richard
Brooke, Hon Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Browne, John


Amess, David
Bruinvels, Peter


Ancram, Michael
Bryan, Sir Paul


Arnold, Tom
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Ashby, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Aspinwall, Jack
Budgen, Nick


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Bulmer, Esmond


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Burt, Alistair


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Butcher, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Butler, Hon Adam


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Baldry, Tony
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carttiss, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Cash, William


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Chalker, Mrs Lynda




Bellingham, Henry
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bendall, Vivian
Chapman, Sydney


Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic
Chope, Christopher


Benyon, William
Churchill, W. S.


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Blackburn, John
Cockeram, Eric


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Colvin, Michael


Body, Richard
Coombs, Simon


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cope, John


Bottomley, Peter
Cormack, Patrick


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Corrie, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Couchman, James


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Critchley, Julian


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Crouch, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bright, Graham
Dicks, Terry






Dorrell, Stephen
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Dover, Den
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Hunter, Andrew


Dunn, Robert
Irving, Charles


Durant, Tony
Jackson, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Jessel, Toby


Eggar, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Emery, Sir Peter
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Evennett, David
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Fallon, Michael
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Farr, Sir John
Key, Robert


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
King, Rt Hon Tom


Fletcher, Alexander
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Forman, Nigel
Knowles, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Knox, David


Forth, Eric
Lamont, Norman


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lang, Ian


Fox, Marcus
Latham, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Lawrence, Ivan


Freeman, Roger
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fry, Peter
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Gale, Roger
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Galley, Roy
Lester, Jim


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Lightbown, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lilley, Peter


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Lord, Michael


Goodlad, Alastair


Lyell, Nicholas


Gorst, John
McCrindle, Robert


Gow, Ian
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Gower, Sir Raymond
Macfarlane, Neil


Grant, Sir Anthony
MacGregor, John


Greenway, Harry
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gregory, Conal
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Maclean, David John


Grist, Ian
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Ground, Patrick
Madel, David


Grylls, Michael
Major, John


Gummer, John Selwyn
Malins, Humfrey


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Malone, Gerald


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Maples, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Marland, Paul


Hanley, Jeremy
Marlow, Antony


Hannam, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Mates, Michael


Harris, David
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Harvey, Robert
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Haselhurst, Alan
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mellor, David



Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Merchant, Piers


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hayes, J.
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hayhoe, Barney
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hayward, Robert
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Miscampbell, Norman


Heddle, John
Moate, Roger


Henderson, Barry
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Hickmet, Richard
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hicks, Robert
Moore, John


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Hill, James
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hind, Kenneth
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Mudd, David


Holt, Richard
Murphy, Christopher


Howard, Michael
Neale, Gerrard


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Nelson, Anthony


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Neubert, Michael


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Newton, Tony


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Nicholls, Patrick





Normanton, Tom
Spencer, Derek


Norris, Steven
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Onslow, Cranley
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Squire, Robin


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Osborn, Sir John
Steen, Anthony


Ottaway, Richard
Stern, Michael


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Parris, Matthew
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Stokes, John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Stradling Thomas, J.


Pawsey, James
Sumberg, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Pollock, Alexander
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Porter, Barry
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Portillo, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Terlezki, Stefan


Powell, William (Corby)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Powley, John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Price, Sir David
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thornton, Malcolm


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thurnham, Peter


Raffan, Keith
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rathbone, Tim
Tracey, Richard


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Trippier, David


Renton, Tim
Trotter, Neville


Rhodes James, Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Viggers, Peter


Ribbon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Waddington, David


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Roe, Mrs Marion
Walden, George




Rossi, Sir Hugh
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Rost, Peter
Waller, Gary


Rowe, Andrew
Walters, Dennis


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Ward, John


Ryder, Richard
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Warren, Kenneth


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Watson, John


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Watts, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Scott, Nicholas
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wheeler, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Whitfield, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Whitney, Raymond


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wilkinson, John


Shersby, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Silvester, Fred
Wood, Timothy


Sims, Roger
Woodcock, Michael


Skeet, T. H. H.
Yeo, Tim


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Soames, Hon Nicholas



Speed, Keith
Tellers for the Ayes:


Speller, Tony
Mr. Carol Mather and


Spence, John
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


NOES


Abse, Leo
Benn, Tony


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)


Anderson, Donald
Bermingham, Gerald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bidwell, Sydney


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Blair, Anthony


Ashton, Joe
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Boyes, Roland


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)




Barnett, Guy
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Barron, Kevin
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)


Bell, Stuart
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)






Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Caborn, Richard
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Ian
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Canavan, Dennis
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Carter-Jones. Lewis
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clarke, Thomas
Heffer, Eric S.


Clay, Robert
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Home Robertson, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cohen, Harry
Hoyle, Douglas


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Janner, Hon Greville


Corbyn, Jeremy
John, Brynmor


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Craigen, J. M.
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Crowther, Stan
Lambie, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lamond, James


Cunningham. Dr John
Leadbitter, Ted


Dalyell, Tam
Leighton, Ronald


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Litherland, Robert


Deakins, Eric
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dewar, Donald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dixon, Donald
Loyden, Edward


Dobson, Frank
McCartney, Hugh


Dormand, Jack
McGuire, Michael


Douglas, Dick
McKelvey, William


Dubs, Alfred
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Duffy, A. E. P.
McNamara, Kevin


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
McTaggart, Robert




Eadie, Alex
McWilliam, John


Eastham, Ken
Madden, Max


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Marek, Dr John


Ellis, Raymond
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Ewing, Harry
Maxton, John


Fatchett, Derek
Maynard, Miss Joan


Faulds, Andrew
Meacher, Michael


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Michie, William


Fields T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Mikardo, Ian


Fisher, Mark
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Flannery, Martin
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Forrester, John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foster, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foulkes, George
Nellist, David


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon




Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
O'Brien, William


Garrett, W. E.
O'Neill, Martin


George, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Park, George


Godman, Dr Norman
Parry, Robert


Golding, John
Patchett, Terry


Gould, Bryan
Pavitt, Laurie


Gourlay, Harry
Pendry, Tom





Pike, Peter
Soley, Clive


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Spearing, Nigel


Prescott, John
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Radice, Giles
Stott, Roger


Randall, Stuart
Strang, Gavin


Redmond, M.
Straw, Jack


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Richardson, Ms Jo
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Tinn, James


Robertson, George
Torney, Tom


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rogers, Allan
Wareing, Robert


Rooker, J. W.
Weetch, Ken


Rowlands, Ted
Welsh, Michael


Ryman, John
White, James


Sedgemore, Brian
Wigley, Dafydd


Sheerman, Barry
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Wilson, Gordon


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Winnick, David


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Woodall, Alec


Short, Mrs R. (W'hampt'n NE)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Silkin, Rt Hon J.



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Snape, Peter
Mr. Allen McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House deeply regrets the damage done to the coal industry, miners, miners' families and mining communities by the unnecessary industrial action of some sections of the National Union of Mineworkers; recognises that this action Ls totally unjustified since this Government have provided more capital investment for the industry than any previous Government, far in excess of that provided by the last Labour Government, and substantially exceeding the scale of investment envisaged in `Plan for Coal'; recognises it is also unjustified in the light of the National Coal Board's extremely generous offer on pay, early retirement and voluntary redundancy terms, and on the creation of a scheme designed to bring new enterprises and job opportunities to mining communities; notes the acceptance of the Board's offer by the industry's other two unions, and the refusal to strike by those sections of the National Union of Mineworkers which in that union's normal tradition decided to hold a ballot; deplores the Opposition's failure to persuade the National Union of Mineworkers both to arrange a national ballot and to use methods of picketing complying with the National Union of Mineworkers and Trades Union Congress guidelines on picketing; regrets the National Union of Mineworkers leadership's intransigence, displayed in seven rounds of negotiations, including with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service whose compromise proposal was accepted by the Board but rejected by the National Union of Mineworkers; and expresses the hope that this intransigence will now cease so that a realistic settlement can quickly be achieved which recognises that the cost of production is an important factor in securing a good and prosperous future for the industry.

Immigration

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Immigration Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1984 (S.I. 1984, No. 2041), dated 21st December 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th January, be annulled.
We have the opportunity for only a short debate on this issue, although immigration is clearly a matter of major interest to many people. The specific point this evening covers only a narrow issue about immigration as, sadly, the prayer does not enable us to criticise or consider the entire Immigration Act 1971 or the immigration rules.
I note that next week the Commission for Racial Equality is expected to publish its report on immigration procedures. It must be a matter of regret that with such an important report shortly to come before us, the Minister has attempted to pre-empt it by laying down these rules before we have had a chance to consider the CRE's report. In passing, I should note that when those procedures were before the House for the first time in 1969, under the Immigration Appeals Act 1969, the Minister voted against the Second Reading, although, as he did not speak in that debate, it is impossible to judge what his views were.
It is clearly unsatisfactory to have such a limited procedure to deal with such complex rules, because even in one hour we can hardly discuss the details adequately and we cannot suggest amendments. It would have been much better had the Minister introduced draft rules which we could have discussed, on the lines of the procedure adopted by the House in recent years of discussing immigration rules in draft form so that amendments suggested by the House can, if the Minister is willing, be incorporated. It is a pity that we do not have the benefit of that approach this evening.
The new rules are the product of a review of immigration appeals that was announced in 1980. In 1981, the Government published a discussion document, and many organisations commented. Sadly, those comments were never published, although the rules are clearly the product of the review. This is the House's first chance thoroughly to examine the procedure for immigration appeals.
It will come as no surprise to the Minister if I contend that the present immigration appeals system is fundamentally unjust, as is the entire immigration system. May I draw to his attention several specific examples of that. First it is almost valueless to tell people that they have a right of appeal provided that they exercise it outside Britain. That is true of people whom the Minister would call illegal entrants, but it is a travesty to say, "Leave this country and appeal from another country." We all know that that does not work.
Secondly, there is no right of appeal for refugees seeking asylum in Britain. Such a right would bring Britain more into line with the international convention and protocol on the status of refugees, of which Britain is a signatory.
A further criticism is that in half the present immigration appeals, the appellant is not present at the hearing.
Another criticism is that adjudicators are appointed by the Home Office, although the Wilson committee

recommended that they should be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Adjudicators sit alone, but I should have thought that it would be preferable to have more than one adjudicator. Furthermore, there is no legal aid, although the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants do good work in helping appellants. Nevertheless, in 1979, the Royal Commission on Legal Services recommended that legal aid should be available for immigration appeals.
There is no right of appeal to the High Court on a point of law, and there is no procedure for the tape recording of immigration interviews and the use of such tapes in immigration appeals. Such tape recording would provide an essential safeguard for many people who feel aggrieved by the present approach. I hope that the Minister will consider introducing tape recording. It was considered by the Select Committee on Home Affairs some years ago, and I was a member of the Race Relations and Immigration Sub-Committee which produced a report. The arguments that we heard from Home Office representatives did not convince most of us that it would not be a good idea to introduce tape recording. One argument was that as an immigration officer or entry certificate officer would be interviewing an applicant, and as an interpreter would be present, tape recording would be confusing as no one would know who was speaking. That is an absurd suggestion, but it was put forward in all seriousness. Our appeals procedure would be significantly improved and made much fairer if there were tape recording, and such tapes were admissible in evidence during appeal proceedings.
Several changes have been made in the immigration rules, but time allows me to discuss only one or two of them. Two rules in particular concern me over and above the others. Under rule 41, all appeals from an appellant to a tribunal can be carried out, if the rules are passed today, only with the leave either of the tribunal or the adjudicator, whereas at present, there is an automatic right of appeal. That is unnecessarily limiting the rights of anybody who wishes to appeal.

Mr. Greville Janner: Disgraceful.

Mr. Dubs: As my hon. and learned Friend says, it is disgraceful. I can see no justification for the Minister having done this.
The other rule that concerns me particularly is rule 21(c), which gives tribunals additional powers to dispose of appeals without a hearing. Already, there are enough instances of appellants having their futures decided without their presence. Here is an extension of that power. It particularly affects cases where the granting of leave to appeal to a tribunal is mandatory under section 22(5) of the Immigration Act 1971. It particularly affects those people who have applied for entry certificates, been granted one, but, on arrival in the United Kingdom, are refused entry. This is really an attempt to circumvent section 22(5) of the Immigration Act. It certainly goes against the spirit of that Act, and may well go against the letter of it. It is a significant diminution of the rights of the individual when faced with the new rules.
I remind the Minister that the Afia Begum case came roughly into this category. It is true that her tribunal appeal was unfortunately lost, but perhaps the enormous support that she received from all over the country while awaiting the appeal persuaded the Home Office to change the


procedure so that in future it could no longer be used. Most hon. Members will be aware of the circumstances, but I shall briefly remind them of the facts. Afia Begum was a 19-year-old woman, who married a man who was settled here, and under the immigration rules required entry clearance. She applied for it, but by the time that she got it and arrived in the country, her husband had died tragically in a fire in his home.
When Afia Begum sought to enter the country, she was refused entry. She appealed and lost the case. Under the suggested new system, she would not have had even that right of appeal. In future, people will be denied such a right. It is disgraceful that the Minister is seeking to weaken existing rights in this way.
A number of rules have not been changed but are still undesirable in their effects. Under rule 4, there is a time limit for appeals, and an appellant in Britain has only 14 days in which to get his appeal in. That 14-day period starts on the day when the Home Office posts the notice of decision. That means that appellants may miss their chance to appeal because by the time that delays in the post have had their effect, there is little time left. If the appellant is not being advised by somebody who knows a lot about the matter, or if he does not know about it and does not speak fluent English, he may lose his chance to appeal to stay. Sometimes people even miss the date when they are advised by solicitors. It is wrong to impose a rigorous time limit.
The time limit of 14 days applies also under rule 15, in an appeal from an appellant to a tribunal. Again, the same objections apply here. Under rule 5, there is no provision for an appeal out of time from an appellant to a tribunal, although there is some provision for this in an appeal to an adjudicator. Under rule 27, appellants have no right to insist that Home Office officials or immigration officers should give oral evidence or present themselves for cross-examination. Again, that is a significant diminution in the right of an individual.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): To which rule is the hon. Gentleman referring?

Mr. Dubs: Rule 27.

Mr. Waddington: Surely, the hon. Gentleman will agree that there has been no alteration in rule 27.

Mr. Dubs: I said that this was one of the rules that had not been changed, but nevertheless, with the passage of time, I find it undesirable. If we are presented with a set of rules that incorporate some amendments, it is reasonable to say that we disagree both with some of the amendments and with some of the original rules.
The Minister followed a consultation procedure, but many of the rules have been criticised by organisations and individuals that have made representations in response to the consultation document. It is unfortunate that the Minister has not heeded those representations. It is unfortunate also that he has not explained why, but perhaps we shall hear the reason later this evening. It is against that background that I am arguing that some of the rules that the Minister has not changed are still undesirable. That is part of the Opposition's case.
An appellant has a limited right to demand the production of documents and adjudicators have no general power to order relevant documents to be produced.
Indeed, an ajudicator cannot even require an entry clearance officer's notes to be produced as part of a hearing. In the absence of tape recordings a great deal has to be attached to the accuracy of the notes of an entry clearance officer at the time of the interview. The fact that these notes cannot be made available at the time of a hearing weakens the right of the appellant, as a critical part of the evidence is denied to the ajudicator or the tribunal.

Ms. Clare Short: It seems that no other system claims to be judicial in which a hostile witness—the entry clearance officer who has refused someone entry—is required to give the major part of the evidence on which an appeal is heard. Surely this is a defect in the system that can be remedied only by the adoption of tape recording.

Mr. Dubs: My hon. Friend is right and I agree fully with the argument that she has advanced.
Rule 23 is concerned with the requirements of bail applications. It is a matter of regret that there is no necessity for the applicant authority to deal speedily with applications for bail when someone is held in custody under the Immigration Act. It can take quite a long time for such a hearing to take place. Someone may be held in custody in the London area for as long as a couple of weeks before, if his bail application is successful, he is released from custody. Surely that is not the right way in which to proceed.
The rules are typified by delays and discrimination. As a result, they assist materially in keeping families apart. The main responsibility rests with the rules and the Act and not the procedures here. However, there is so much discontent with the way in which our immigration procedures operate and the way in which appeals are conducted that there is a great feeling of injustice at the discrimination that takes place in our immigration system, of which the rules are a part.

Mr. John Fraser: The Minister's staff are invariably courteous when we telephone to deal with immigration cases. Unfortunately, their courtesy is not always matched by the Minister's decisions. I do not wish in any sense to let him off the hook, but all hon. Members are grateful for the speed and infinite patience with which out telephone calls are handled by his private office and for the letters which follow those calls.
Secondly, there has been some improvement in the procedures at Lunar house as a result of our debates. Lunar house now has a human face, but previously it had no face. It was impossible to employ the ears of Lunar house by telephone. It seemed impossible to speak to one of its officials, and very often one felt that the staff were not reading the submissions which had been made. However, the result of criticisms of Lunar house is that officials respond by means of telephone calls. It is possible to make telephone calls to them, although the telephone lines are engaged on some occasions. I hope that the Minister will regard this situation as an improvement in some ways on what was happening previously and not as perfect.

Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said. I am proud of the staff who serve under me. However, I am slightly mystified by his remarks. One must not have too thin a skin in my position, but I do not know what he means when he suggests that I have been


discourteous. I have had no personal dealings with him about any immigration case. If he feels that I have been discourteous at third or fourth hand, I wish that he would let me know, and I shall gladly look into the matter.

Mr. Fraser: I have not made myself clear. I intended to say that the courtesy of the Minister's private office was not always matched by the welcomeness of the Minister's decisions. I acquit him of any discourtesy and did not intend to imply that there was any.
One requirement of immigration rules and procedure is that the substance of the rules should be fair. That cannot be said of them at the moment. The rules remain sexist in the extreme, and have not been helped by a recent decision of the Divisional court that the husband of a United Kingdom citizen will not be allowed to stay if one purpose of the marriage was to enable that person to remain in Britain.
The procedure ought to be fair. It ought not to be full of booby traps. Immigration appeal rules that create tripwires are unjust and create a grave sense of injustice and unfairness among those who have to operate them. I should like the Minister to give special attention to the way in which he has changed rule 6 so that there is no longer a prescribed form of appeal against the decision of an entry clearance officer or an immigration officer. The procedure is full of traps, not least because the time limit of 14 days in which to make an appeal does not commence when the decision is received by the applicant but when the decision is made.
If a decision is made and posted on a Friday during the Christmas period, it might not arrive until Tuesday because of delays. Moreover, the applicant might not be able to read English or understand the decision and will therefore want to get advice. It is therefore easy for 14 days to elapse between getting the decision and lodging an appeal, and thus to lose appeal rights. That is redeemed at the moment by the Home Office's practice of sending out an appeal form which states the particulars that the new rule 6 requires — name, address, date of birth, nationality, the decision that is being appealed against, the grounds of appeal, whether an oral hearing is sought and whether the appellant is appealing against the country to which he is being removed.
If people cannot read English, those to whom they go for advice or for a translation can see what must be done and where the form must be sent. The likelihood of mistakes is minimised by the form. As soon as the Home Office departs from that practice of sending out a prescribed appeal form, mistakes will be made. People will leave out details of the decision, their date of birth or their nationality. In other words, the form of appeal will be invalidated, not on the merits of the case but on a technicality. It is in the interests of the Home Office and the Minister for appeals to be made through the prescribed form or a letter, delivered to the Home Office, that gives particulars that are as nearly as possible the same as those given in the prescribed form.
If the Home Office drops the prescribed form, it will result in a sense of injustice and a great deal of delay. It will create the suspicion that the Home Office intends to introduce rules with which it will be difficult to comply. An example is the substantive immigration rules. One cannot change one's status from that of a visitor to a

business man unless one is out of the country. It is very difficult to acquire a business when one is out of the country. On this rule alone I implore the Minister to think again for the sake of the immigrant, the Home Office and good race relations in this country.

Mr. Greville Janner: Already there is a very profound sense of injustice among all immigrant communities concerning the operation of the current immigration procedures that come within the Acts. These new rules do absolutely nothing to change that sense of injustice. Indeed, they make matters worse. Not only is injustice manifestly felt to be done, but further steps are now to be taken to remove existing rights. Speaking, as I know I do, on behalf of a vast number of Asian citizens who feel that the discrimination against them at ports of entry by immigration officers under the current rules is wicked and rampant, I beg the Government to reconsider whether or not they could produce rules——

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Janner: No, I will not. Every Opposition Member who is in the House wishes to speak and I do not intend to take up their time.
There is no question but that immigration officers are believed and, in my view, frequently correctly believed to discriminate against people because they are Asians. Under the present rules, there is an automatic method under which a person who wishes to appeal against the refusal of entry clearance is given a blank appeal form with which to instigate his appeal. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) in begging the Government not to require people whose knowledge of the system is non-existent; who arrive in this country frightened and often in a state of deep insecurity; who do not speak the language and who often have come here entirely legitimately, to fill in special forms that will not automatically be given to them, or to require them to instigate appeals by writing to the authorities. This change will undoubtedly affect——

Mr. Budgen: The hon. and learned Member speaks of the great sense of injustice that is felt by many of his constituents. I have a very large Asian community in my constituency and I have received no letters or representations about this issue. It is all too easy for hon. Members to express their personal views and to pretend that they are supported by a large body of opinion. Will the hon. Member please give us further and better particulars of this strong sense of injustice that is being put to him?

Mr. Janner: With the greatest of pleasure. Before the Minister leaves the House, as he is apparently doing at this moment, I shall ask him to be kind enough, when he is outside the House, to produce the vast file of letters that I have written to him over past years denouncing precisely these injustices. Day after day, week after week, my Asian constituents bring complaints to me. That the constituents of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) bring no complaints to him should be no surprise to any hon. Member of this House, knowing the way in which the hon. Member would be likely to deal with them.

Mr. David Alton: Would not the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West


accept that in a way the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South-West (Mr. Budgen) has a point? The point that many hon. Members on this side of the House would argue is that people have a great deal of difficulty in writing these letters and that that is why it is so odious that there is to be a change in the rules by removing a form that is so easy to fill in and insisting instead that people should send letters.

Mr. Janner: I fully accept that point. On the other hand, in constituencies such as mine the Asian community knows that their Asian Labour councillors and their Labour Member of Parliament are working for them and with them. With surgeries every week and availability every day, and very often every hour of the day, there is no shortage of complaints, and the Minister knows it.
The question is whether the procedures are fair now — in my view they are not—and whether the revised procedures will make them any fairer. On the contrary, they will do damage. They will harm good race relations and good will. They will not improve procedures. Even now, the Minister should think again and withdraw the procedures, wait for the CRE report and then introduce procedures that are fair, decent and honourable.

Mr. David Alton: The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) rightly said that it was a shame that the debate was taking place only a few days before a valuable report is to be produced which will highlight many of the deficiencies in the rules. Not only is it discourteous to have the debate in advance of that report being produced, but it is clearly an attempt to preempt some of the criticisms that will probably be contained in it.
The hon. Member for Battersea also said that the present system was fundamentally unjust and that there was a need for more than one adjudicator. He said that there was a need for legal aid—in a sense, a more judicial system than the one that we have. I wholeheartedly endorse that. He said that there was a need for tape recordings of interviews and talked about the admissibility of interviews when deciding on the issues. He talked about the disposal of appeals about hearings. They were valuable points, all of which I would happily endorse.
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) talked about the courtesy which Home Office staff in the private office show, and I found that to be the case as well. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) talked of the examples that he has experienced in his constituency of people having difficulty understanding the gobbledegook of many of the Home Office rules and regulations. My city has a large immigrant community with considerable illiteracy and frequently people have enormous problems in understanding complicated rules and regulations.
The rules before the House tonight have been dissected by many of the influential immigrant organisations such as the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and the United Kingdom immigrants advisory service. I do not intend to detail their criticisms, which will be well known to the Minister and which have widespread support on these Benches, but I shall ask him not to ignore those well-thought-out representations.
Those groups and many others took the trouble to make detailed comments on the discussion document of April

1981. Their comments have never been published by the Minister. The rule changes are the only product of the review announced in 1980 and bear little relation to informed opinion or comment now or then. That cavalier disregard for the view of representative organisations concerns me, but my major concern tonight is how little relationship the rules bear to any form of humanity, opportunity or real justice.

Mr. Derek Spencer: How can it be an injustice when rule 6(4) says:
The grounds of an appeal particularised in a notice of appeal may be varied or amplifed at any time during the course of the appeal"?
Surely that leaves the matter wide open. What is the matter with that? Surely it is much better than having a formal notice?

Mr. Alton: It all rather depends on whether the grounds exist in the first place. As the hon. and learned Gentleman well knows, the grounds may not appear to exist in the eyes of the Minister. It may depend on the information which is sent back. It may be that the adjudicator does not agree with the grounds submitted. All those factors will apply. The changes in the rules tonight will only make matters worse. They must be seen in the context of many other changes which have taken place in the past nearly six years. There have been a frightening number of infringements.

Mr. Waddington: It is important that people should not be misled. The hon. Gentleman is surely not trying to give the impression that no heed was paid to the representations made by the JCWI. He knows perfectly will if he has read the draft rules that the opposite is the case. He knows perfectly well that the most minimal changes have been made in the rules. We stuck more or less to what was the situation when the Labour Government were in power simply because we did heed the representations of bodies such as the JCWI. The hon. Gentleman must not mislead the House and give the impression that we have flown in the face of representations made to us. We have heeded virtually every one.

Mr. Alton: The Minister knows that the JCWI takes a dim view of the regulations, Indeed, it says:
The limp product of a review initiated nearly five years ago does nothing to challenge the fundamental injustices of the immigration appeals system.
The council sets out a number of complaints about the way in which the system works.
The rules must be seen against the background of a number of infringements that have occurred against the immigrant community and others over the past six years. There has been the infringement of the right to movement, the infringement of the right to form relationships, the infringement of the right to live together as a family unit and, in particular, the infringement of the right of all women to equal treatment under the law. All those rights are in the United Nations declaration of which the United Kingdom was founder signatory.
It is no surprise to find tonight that other rights are jeopardised. It is a tragedy that the Government should be so dedicated to undermining the personal liberties of our people as well as the aims of institutions such as the United Nations. But that is part of the pattern that we have come to expect over the past five or six years. The Government's


poor record on overseas aid and provision for overseas students, and our record on the rights of immigrants and the treatment of foreign visitors on arrival in the United Kingdom all damage the proud reputation that this country once enjoyed around the world.
The new rules are littered with examples of how the state's powers are increased at the expense of the individual. For example, rule 6(1) removes the Home Office's responsibility for providing simple, straightforward forms to give notice of appeal. Appellants will be told in future that they must write a letter to the Minister. I wholeheartedly endorse the view of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service that the change can lead only to uncertainty among those considering an appeal. It will undoubtedly create further confusion and frustration among those who are already confused and frustrated by a complicated system.
Yet the change will also create more work for civil servants, burdening them with reading letters often written by people who are not well versed in the English language. The change is the exact opposite of the stated aim of the review, which was that it should be a
consideration of ways to reduce delays and create more efficient use of resources".
In an area so afflicted by bureaucracy, it is strange to see the Government creating yet more work for their civil servants. But, of course, the Government's motives are patently obvious — to place as many obstacles as possible in the path of the appellant, to create a tangled web of bureaucratic controls and to impose every possible burden on the shoulders of those seeking refuge, and all in the hope of deterring appeals and making life as difficult as possible for people who are often frightened, vulnerable and greatly at risk.
The Government should not replace the mandatory provision of appeal forms by a requirement on appellants to write a letter. Similarly, it is wrong to specify in advance that if certain particulars are omitted, an appeal will be deemed to be disallowed. Nor should grounds of appeal have to be submitted at the time of giving notice of appeal. What if crucial information is inadvertently missed out? What if the immigrant is not aware of what is relevant and what is not?
Similarly, under rule 14, access to the tribunal against an adjudicator's decision will be possible only by leave. That erodes the right of appeal provided for in the 1971 Act and will make it difficult to challenge an adjudicator's decision before the tribunal. Once again, the Home Office is trying to reduce the rights of the appellant and this time the change in the rules will mean that some people who currently have the right to remain in the United Kingdom will in future be deprived of that right.
Time does not permit me to go through all the examples, but my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) has told me about someone who was made to wait for about four years before a decision was made. A Nigerian constituent of mine has been ordered home to Nigeria. The Minister wrote to me on 1 February saying that she would be able to exercise her right to appeal to an independent adjudicator against the decision to refuse her entry. That is a terrible way to treat people. They are sent back whence they came and they cannot get advice or make appeals.
I remember the case of a young Bangladeshi boy, Gias Uddin, who had been educated in this country, but who was sent back to Bangladesh and told to prove that that was where he came from. He had to prove, through some sort of certification, that he was born in that country to people who had the right to live in this country — and all because he could not produce a piece of paper. He was unable to appeal from Bangladesh because he was not able to produce the necessary documents. That is a hallmark of this Government. Another example of the inhumanity of our immigration legislation, which these proposals will compound——

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Alton: I have already given way, and I am sure that the House will understand if I press on.
Another example of the inhumanity of our immigration legislation, which these proposals will compound, is the process that a British woman must go through in order to bring her fiancé into this country. She must prove that she met him before his interview for settlement, with the state acting as some sort of voyeur. She must prove that the marriage
will not be undertaken mainly in order for him to settle in the UK",
with the state acting as prosecution, judge, jury and appeal court for the crime of love. She must prove that he will not rely on supplementary benefit or any other public funds. He may then have to undergo a medical examination, and the couple may also be ordered to reveal letters or private correspondence between them. One wonders whether civil servants in the Home Office do not have better things to do. It is a degrading, dehumanising and often disgusting process to have to go through.
These rule changes will place even more aces up the Home Secretary's sleeve. They will increase the odds yet more against an appellant. In some cases a pathetic 14 days is given in which to give notice of appeal. At the same time, the amount of documentation that the appellant must gather appears to increase substantially.
These people will often be abroad, illiterate or not English speakers. The rules may make a difficult task near to impossible. That could, of course, be the Government's intention. It is certainly the view of many people that that is the Government's aim.
My party will oppose the new rules tonight, because we believe that they will substantially erode good race relations in this country and that they will make life much more difficult for immigrants who have already suffered quite enough under this Government's pernicious policies.

Mr. David Winnick: Perhaps I should declare an interest as I am the chairman of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. Which I hasten to add, is an unpaid position.
I believe that the more strictly immigration is controlled, the more important it is that the appeal system is fair and just, and seen to be so by those appealing. It is important to bear in mind that not only immigration is at issue. Many people who want to come to Britain to visit or study are refused permission to do so and then are given the right to lodge an appeal. When the Wilson committee recommended in the late 1960s that the appeal system be set up, it was stressed that those who were refused either


here or abroad should be in a position to put their cases to an adjudicator with the necessary advice and representation.
Some of the changes are disturbing. Earlier, the Minister said that he had more or less agreed with the representations made by the JCWI, but it is important to remember that like the UKAIS, the JCWI has objected to several of the proposed changes. I also re-emphasise the need for forms to be supplied to those refused. I am not suggesting that only the form should be the basis of any appeal. But many of those refused are on the Indian subcontinent and may have great difficulty in composing a letter once refused. It is feared that agents will be used. As the Minister knows, when they are involved in India or Pakistan they often confuse the position, worsen the appellant's situation and make his chances of winning that much less. If an application is turned down, a form should be sent, as has been the position until now.
It is wrong to say, as rule 6.3 does, that an appellant should have to give grounds for an appeal at the time that an appeal is lodged. Often it is impossible to give adequate grounds, because the wording of the refusal is such that it provides little basis on which to lodge an appeal. When the explanatory statement is finally issued giving all the reasons for the application being turned down, there is some substance upon which to submit the grounds. The Minister should, therefore, reconsider that point.
Some people apply to stay here because they fear that if they return they will face possible persecution. If the appeal is turned down by an adjudicator and an application for leave is made to the tribunal it can succeed only if the tribunal is satisfied that the fears of persecution are genuine. This is not a technical matter. It is important. The application for leave for the case to be heard by the tribunal will be determined before the appeal is heard, if permission is granted.
Rule 14(2)(b)provides that the tribunal has to be satisfied on the basis of the written submission that there are genuine fears for the person to return to his own country. The person has to make the point in writing on the basis that if the application for leave to appeal succeeds he will seek to prove his case at a full hearing of the tribunal. That will cause anxiety to people who believe that they have genuine difficulties and genuine reasons to fear persecution, and worse, if they are forced to leave the country.
It is unfortunate that this debate is limited to one hour. This is a matter of great concern to many of our constituents and their relatives. I see no reason why it should be confined to such a short time. It shows, I think the lack of respect by the Government for issues of justice.
If we are to have such a rigid system of immigration control we must ensure that those who are refused, whether they want to live here, study or visit, must genuinely believe that if they lodge an appeal it will be heard in the proper spirit and that they have the right to put their case to an independent adjudicator or tribunal. It is up to the Minister to satisfy those people that they will have that right. Most people do not believe that they stand much chance of having their case heard in this way.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister responsible for immigration and to the caring way in which he looks after

the ethnic community. Despite what Opposition Members said, his Private Office has performend well when I have contacted it.
There is a much larger ethnic community in my constituency than there is in the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). Out of my 19,500 ethnic constituents, not one has made a representation to me about being unhappy with the new immigration appeals procedure.
The procedure as detailed in the new rules, especially 6 and 16, makes it easier for members of the ethnic community to accept the rules as they are. The rules are fairer. The grounds for refusal, for applying and appealing are made very clear and they provide an easier way of handling all types of appeals.
The people involved need care to be shown to them. I believe that they are shown care in the way that I would show care, unlike some Opposition Members. The rights that they seek are being dealt with in a much more humane manner. I cannot understand why the Opposition parties find it necessary to complain about the appeals. I deal regularly with immigration appeal procedures—between five and 10 times a day — so I know more about immigration procedures than most other hon. Members.
Let us remember that those who come here and then appeal, having been told it is time for them to go, cannot yet be called "our people." Indeed, having been allowed to come on a visit, they are being unfair to those who wish to come here permanently and who are patiently waiting under a quota arrangement to be allowed to come. We should aim to ensure the continuation of the humane way in which my hon. and learned Friend has dealt with these matters in the past. The sort of criticism that we have heard tonight from Opposition Members does nothing to make for the harmonious conditions that now exist in Leicester in particular and in Britain in general. I commend the appeals procedure.

The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): The hon Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) complained about the limited time available for this debate. The Opposition tabled the prayer—they had every right to do so—and many will have been surprised at their having done so.
I say that because anybody who had read the instrument with care — which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley (Mr. Alton) had not—would have recognised that, far from us ignoring all the points made by the JCWI in its comments on the consultation document, we have heeded what it had said, and therefore the rules include only the minimum number of changes.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) was less than fair. He was wrong to say that the Wilson committee had recommended that adjudicators should be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. In fact, the Wilson committee recommended precisely the reverse—that they should not be appointed by the Lord Chancellor — and the Labour Government of the day followed the recommendations of that committee.
Nor did the hon. Member for Battersea tell the whole stary about the tape recording of interviews. The chief adjudicator had the opportunity recently of assessing how helpful the tape recording of interviews might be by investigating results of experiments conducted in the Indian sub-continent, and he unhesitatingly concluded that


it would not be helpful to have tape recordings. That does not mean that I have closed my mind entirely to the possibility in the future. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the Government are not being obdurate in this matter. The chief adjudicator's view was that it would not help.

Ms. Clare Short: He is appointed by the Minister.

Mr. Waddington: That is a ridiculous observation, and the hon. Lady may wish that I had not heard her remark, for she is saying, in effect, that because adjudicators are appointed by the Home Office — in accordance with the recommendations of the Wilson committee—nobody should have respect for the work being done by the adjudicators. That is a wicked thing to say. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Lady will withdraw her remark, because those who are appointed adjudicators are people of great probity and who carry out an extremely difficult task with great skill.

Ms. Short: rose——

Mr. Waddington: I hope that the hon. Lady will reflect on what she said, and I give way to her in the hope that she will withdraw her remark.

Ms. Short: The Minister distorted what I said. I said that the chief adjudicator, who is appointed by the Minister, took the same view on the tape recording of evidence as did the Minister and that that might not have been a total coincidence. I did not make any comment about the general performance of adjudicators—which I consider to be patchy; some are good and some are extremely bad. The whole system would be better if adjudicators were appointed by a body independent of the Home Office.

Mr. Waddington: The House now has the opportunity to judge what the hon. Lady was getting at. I do not think that I was entirely unfair in concluding that she was making a gross attack. She now says in mitigation that the attack was not on all adjudicators but only on the chief adjudicator. I should have called that a plea in aggravation rather than a plea in mitigation.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Waddington: No, I have a great deal of material to cover.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill advanced a most extraordinary proposition. Like most of the propositions that he advanced it had absolutely nothing to do with the rules before us. Nevertheless, as he mentioned this ridiculous proposition I suppose that I had better take it up. He took the view—presumably it is also the view of the Liberal party — that anyone who arrives at a port of entry in this country and is refused entry should be able to stay here until such time as his appeal is heard. I ask the hon. Gentleman to address his mind to the practicalities of the matter. In those circumstances either one has to fill the gaols and detention centres with people whose appeals are being prepared or one gives the person what he wanted in the first place — access to this country, to which the immigration officer has found that he is not entitled.

Mr. Alton: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Waddington: No, I really must get on——

Mr. Alton: rose——

Mr. Waddington: Oh, all right.

Mr. Alton: As the Minister seems to have adopted a new strategy today of attacking the person rather than the argument, I am grateful to him for giving way. I cited the example of a Nigerian widow who arrived in this country with her daughter, having lived here for many years. She was returning to stay with a doctor with whom she had worked. The Minister wrote to me about this on 1 February so I am sure that he has read the details of the case. Surely he is not saying that a person in that situation should simply be shipped back without any chance of staying to lodge an appeal and that four years should elapse before the appeal is heard.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what I am saying. If a person is refused entry at the port of entry we operate a most generous system of entry as a result of the intervention of a Member of Parliament. There is not one Member here today who has not benefited from the more liberal regime now operated by the Home Office. We are far more willing to grant temporary admission than the Labour Government were. It it is one thing to allow temporary admission while the Minister looks into the case, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider his proposition that the person should have not just temporary admission but permission to remain here until his or her appeal is heard before an adjudicator, presumably for however long it may take for the legal machinery to be put into action. I repeat that that is the most arrant rubbish.
The Opposition have tabled this prayer, but there is virtually nothing to complain about in the rules. That is why they have so often talked about entirely different matters. In fact, we are leaving things much as they were before and therefore much as they were when the appeals system was set up in 1970 under the Immigration Appeals Act passed by the Labour Government in 1969.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Asian community, in particular, is very well organised and has many representative bodies? How many representations of complaint has he received from those bodies? There is a very large Asian community in my constituency, but I have received no complaints at all about this procedure.

Mr. Waddington: I can tell my hon. Friend that we listened with great attention to the representations that were made to us by a number of bodies. As a result, we have not carried out any of the radical changes canvassed in the consultation document. That is why it is so extraordinary that the Opposition are making such a fuss today. I remind them of the propositions canvassed in the consultation document. It suggested combining the right of appeal against a refusal to vary leave with the right to appeal against a decision to deport. We have not done that. The document suggested removing the right of a short-term visitor to appeal against the refusal of his application to have his stay extended or, alternatively, making that right of appeal exercisable only from abroad—we have not done that. The document suggested removing the right of entry clearance and work permit holders to be given leave to appeal from an adjudicator to the immigration appeal tribunal, and abolishing the right of appeal against


a refusal to revoke a deportation order. At the same time, the possibility of the introduction of two additional rights of appeal was mentioned: a right of appeal from the tribunal to the High Court on a point of law, and a right of appeal before removal for illegal entrants.
As to the procedure rules, several changes, including an extension of the powers of adjudicators to determine appeals without a hearing, were suggested in the document. Comments on the discussion document were received from the appellate authorities, the Council on Tribunals and from many individuals and organisations interested, including UKIAS and JCWI. Those commenting were generally opposed to suggestions aimed at removing or reducing rights of appeal or an appellant's right to an oral hearing of his case, and most of those commenting were in favour of introducing a right of appeal before removal for illegal entrants.
The comments on the discussion document and suggestions made by interested parties for other reforms of the appeals system have been very carefully considered, and the Government's proposals formulated in the light of the changing situation within the appeals system. The proposals in the discussion document were aimed at reducing delays in the system, but since the review was carried out, a concerted attempt by both the Home Office and the appellate authorities to reduce delays has been successful to the extent that at the end of November last year, the number of appeals awaiting a hearing was approximately 9,500 compared with 16,350 at the end of 1979, while the average delay at the appeal hearing centres has been reduced over the same period from 14 months to three to four months. One might have expected Opposition Members to congratulate the Government on having produced a much more satisfactory situation than that which existed when they were in power, instead of cavilling during the past hour.
In the light of that improvement in the overall position, it has been decided that amendments of the 1971 Act limiting rights of appeal are not necessary at this time. At the same time, we do not propose at present to extend the appeal rights of illegal immigrants.
I know that concern has been expressed about illegal immigrants not having a right of appeal before removal, but it must by remembered that their position at present is exactly the same as that of persons not holding entry clearances or work permits who are refused entry at the ports, and we see no justification for treating more favourably someone who has deliberately managed to enter clandestinely or has obtained leave to enter by deceiving an immigration officer, than someone who has been honest about his intentions and has been refused entry as a result. That would be to reward dishonesty over honesty.
The hon. Member for Battersea mentioned only one of the rules — rule 6. I was surprised that Opposition Members made a fuss about that. Rule 6 now embodies the particulars that must be contained in a notice of appeal. This will enable notice of appeal to be given by letter, for instance — that is, far less formally than at present. However, there will also be a gain in administrative convenience. The intention is to continue to issue appeal forms, but the fact that they do not have to be statutorily prescribed means that changes to the forms that might subsequently become desirable can be achieved without having to amend the statutory instrument. That seems to me to be wholly desirable.
As I have said, I am extremely surprised at the Opposition's attitude. I can only assume that, like the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, they have not taken the trouble to compare the representations made by JCWI with the new regulations. They will find that a number of representations were made to us, and we were asked to drop all the radical proposals in our consultation document.
I took the view that as a result of the magnificent efforts of our staff and the fact that we have got rid of so many of the delays in the appeals system which existed under Labour, it was not necessary to carry out these radical changes that were canvassed in the discussion document. If Opposition Members——

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &amp;c. (negative procedure)).

The House divided: Ayes 49, Noes 146.

Division No. 89]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Loyden, Edward


Barron, Kevin
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Beith, A. J.
McGuire, Michael


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
McWilliam, John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Madden, Max


Bruce, Malcolm
Maxton, John


Clay, Robert
Meadowcroft, Michael


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Nellist, David


Cohen, Harry
Parry, Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Patchett, Terry


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Pike, Peter


Craigen, J. M.
Prescott, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Robertson, George


Dewar, Donald
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Dubs, Alfred
Skinner, Dennis


Eadie, Alex
Snape, Peter


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Fatchett, Derek
Wallace, James


Foulkes, George
Welsh, Michael


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Wilson, Gordon


Freud, Clement
Winnick, David


George, Bruce



Haynes, Frank
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Mr. Greville Janner.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)



NOES


Ancram, Michael
Forth, Eric


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fox, Marcus


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Freeman, Roger


Brinton, Tim
Gale, Roger


Brooke, Hon Peter
Galley, Roy


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bruinvels, Peter
Gow, Ian


Budgen, Nick
Gregory, Conal


Butcher, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Cash, William
Ground, Patrick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cockeram, Eric
Hanley, Jeremy


Cope, John
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Harris, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Harvey, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Dover, Den
Hayes, J.


Durant, Tony
Hayhoe, Barney


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hayward, Robert


Fallon, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Heddle, John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)






Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Roe, Mrs Marion



Key, Robert
Rowe, Andrew


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knowles, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Latham, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lawler, Geoffrey
Speed, Keith


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Speller, Tony


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Spencer, Derek


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Lester, Jim
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Stern, Michael


Lightbown, David
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lyell, Nicholas
Stradling Thomas, J.


MacGregor, John
Sumberg, David


Maclean, David John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Major, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Terlezki, Stefan


Malone, Gerald
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Maples, John
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Marland, Paul
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Marlow, Antony
Thurnham, Peter


Mates, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mather, Carol
Tracey, Richard


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Trotter, Neville


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Merchant, Piers
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Waddington, David


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Walden, George


Moore, John
Waller, Gary


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Watson, John


Murphy, Christopher
Watts, John


Newton, Tony
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Normanton, Tom
Wheeler, John


Norris, Steven
Whitfield, John


Ottaway, Richard
Whitney, Raymond


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Wilkinson, John


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wolfson, Mark


Powell, William (Corby)
Wood, Timothy


Powley, John
Woodcock, Michael


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg



Proctor, K. Harvey
Tellers for the Noes:


Raffan, Keith
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Renton, Tim
Mr. Ian Lang.

Question accordingly negatived

COMPETITION

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

That the Anti-Competitive Practices (Exclusions) (Amendment) Order 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 1919), dated 10th December 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th December, be approved.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Question agreed to.

BBC External Services

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Let me begin on a note upon which there will be no disagreement in any quarter of the House: that is, the support and admiration of all of us—and of course I include Her Majesty's Government—for the work of the External Services of the BBC. There is nobody who does not recognise the excellence of what they do. Certainly so far as I am concerned. I believe them to be an important arm of Government foreign policy. Indeed, I think we have got to look at the whole of our defence and foreign policy as one, and external broadcasting has a most important part to play in the influence that Britain can exert throughout the world."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 July 1981; Vol. 423, c. 811.]
Those are not my words, but the words of Lord Carrington, when he was Foreign Secretary, in opening his speech on this subject in another place in July 1981. But, of course, I agree with him completely.
Three years later in a television interview Lord Carrington said:
When I was Foreign Secretary, I was told I had to save money on the overseas service of the BBC. I think that was really totally counter-productive and the money saved was trivial compared to the amount of damage done. I think the time has now come, really, when the Treasury and the Government ought to look at cutting out a function in Government rather than cheeseparing on the things that are essential and have to be done.
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss in the House the future of the BBC external services and to draw attention to the appalling way in which those services have been treated by Governments of both parties in recent years. Those two quotes that I read admirably outline my case, and I hope that the second will at least prevent my hon. Friend the Minister from suggesting in his reply that no damage has been done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, rightly pointed out during a debate in the House in July 1981;
We have two assets in the BBC—the English language and its high reputation, based on its activities during the Second World War, which it has managed to maintain. We are to be asked to approve reductions in expenditure on the overseas services at a time when our country has reduced political power and when there is an increase beyond imagination of the power of the spoken word that reaches out beyond frontiers and speaks to each man in his own tongue."—[Official Report, 23 July 1981; Vol. 9, c. 579.]
Exactly so, and the position has become worse since 1981.
The Government have put a thick smokescreen over the figures. I could devote my speech to debating with my hon. Friend, whose difficult task it is tonight to defend a bad record and a worse case, the detailed statistics, but the heart of the matter is that the reduction of £1·2 million envisaged for 1985–86 will be the ninth cut in the working revenue of the external services in 10 years. I have the size of the reduction in the working revenue for each of those 10 years in front of me. Incidentally, £1·2 million is roughly what the National Coal Board pays out by lunch time.
The cuts of 1982 ended Spanish for Europe, the Italian and the Maltese services. French for Europe and the Brazilian service were halved. In the Falklands war, the two nations in Europe least sympathetic to us because of


their historical ties were Spain and Italy, with France not far behind. In the BBC handbook for 1984, I find these words:
The role played by the External Services in coverage of last year's events in the South Atlantic is generally accepted to have been a vital one. The Argentine invasion of the Falklands came at a tame when the External Services had just suffered the most wide-spread operational cut for many years. Morale amongst highly-motivated staff had been considerably shaken and many talented broadcasters had been lost.
I am told that morale is still shaky, and talented broadcasters are still being lost.
The grant to the vital transcription service, which supplies recorded programmes for re-broadcasting to over 100 countries, has been reduced by £300,000 and the number of programme hours reduced from 500 per annum to 350. I am well aware of the admirable capital expenditure programme that the Government are funding over nine years, to replace transmitters—some of which were installed during the second world war—at home and abroad. However, our praise for that costly programme must not prevent us from appreciating the crisis that is approaching. On present projections, and if the Foreign Office is not able to make up the loss resulting from a falling pound, which has already added well over £1 million per annum to costs, in the next three years services could be faced with cuts of about 10 per cent.
On the Order Paper is an early-day motion put down by six of my hon. Friends and signed by some 70 hon. Friends, calling for an increase in resources for the services. The recently published Public Expenditure White Paper suggests that an increase in resources is unlikely. Without an increase, half a dozen language services could be faced with the axe. What I find so depressing and deplorable is that above the Whitehall table there are golden words of praise for these services, while below the table the knife is cutting deeper into the bones, the flesh having been removed years ago.
The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has strongly reiterated its view that funds should be found to enable the BBC to resume the Caribbean service, which was cut in 1974. This would cost approximately £250,000 per annum. Post the invasion of Grenada, this would appear to be an obvious move, but I learn that the service is not to be resumed. There is an overwhelming case to broadcast to Afghanistan for more than a miserable half an hour a day.
I must warn my hon. Friend that unless there is a change of heart by the Government, the row that has been going on between Front and Back Benches since 1979 over the future of these services will reach a crescendo. I do not believe that the Conservative parliamentary party will sit idly by between now and the general election, and watch the life blood of a fine organisation dribble away.
Over many years, I have found the whole system of funding to be wholly unsatisfactory. The Foreign Office has been responsible for accounting for grants in aid only since 1977–78. For the three years before that, the responsibility rested with the Home Office, and before that with the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications. Since 1979 there has been equal misery all round within the Foreign Office Vote. It is essential, as any of the great commercial organisations could explain to the Government, that Bush house should be funded for at least three years at a time. I note that the review, which I praise for its detailed scrutiny, is at least moving in that direction. There is bound to be inefficient use of capital at present.
In theory the head of the external services should be responsible to the BBC board of governors but, like the review, I accept that close links with the Foreign Office are desirable. The present position would be laughable if it did not damage our reputation abroad, as I am sure our ambassadors, high commissioners and representatives are confirming in their dispatches.
The House will know that international broadcasting is a growth business. I am told that in 1955 there were thought to be 237 million radio sets in the world; today there are 1,600 million. The Voice of America has been given $1·2 billion dollars for its expansion plan. The intention is to increase the number of languages in which it broadcasts from 42 to 60. It is worth noting what has happened recently in France. As part of an austerity budget its foreign relations expenditure was reduced all round except for one item, which was external broadcasting. This has increased by the equivalent of about £3 million. The Japanese are expanding their overseas radio as well. The Soviet Union has expanded its output and dominates the airwaves in terms of hours broadcast. It broadcasts for 2,200 hours per week compared with the BBC's 727. There are 98 other international broadcasters, many of whom are anxious to obtain unused frequencies.
In 1987 the World Administrative Radio Conference meets in Geneva to discuss the allocation of frequencies and hard bargaining is expected. If the Government are to force Bush house to cut further language services, skilled operators and audiences will be lost. There is a real possibility also that frequencies will be lost as well.
In 1979 it was proposed that Turkey should be cut out, but Parliament prevented that. The following year the Foreign Office came back with a request that broadcasts to Turkey should be increased. It is a schoolboy howler to put it about that Britain does not need to speak to her friends. Our relationships with our European Community partners have been damaged by both ignorance and misunderstanding of our position on a range of sensitive issues.
The Government sometimes behave like a small boy who is given a gold watch and is quite unaware of its worth. Britain has the largest overseas audience——100 million—and the best overseas broadcasting services, and we treat them shamefully.
Like most of my hon. Friends, I want our past successes in overseas broadcasting to be built on and not pulled down. I want them expanded and I should like to see the Government supporting the BBC's plans for an international television service with an investment of about £5 million over two years. Without such a service I fear that Britain might be beaten by other countries or commercial operators in world television broadcasting.
Finally, I draw to the attention of my colleagues a remark by, of all people, Colonel Gaddafi. He said:
All the Arab radios rave from dawn 'till noon but nobody listens to them because everyone switches on London.
Are there those in high places in the Government who can see not only what the BBC external services have achieved in 53 years but what they could achieve for our country and for our dangerously divided and turbulent world in the 21st century? Without vision the people perish.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Renton): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for


Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) for raising the future of the BBC's external services on the Adjournment. I welcome the debate and my hon. Friend's comments about the high regard in which the House holds the BBC's external services. I do not agree with his remark that we have treated these services shamefully. I hope to show him why I disagree.
The future of so valuable an asset as the BBC external services is naturally a matter of interest and concern to us all. It was precisely with this in mind that, following discussions between the Foreign Office and the external services' management, the BBC board of governors invited a review of the external services in July last year —the first of its kind for 10 years. The team appointed to carry out the review submitted its report simultaneously to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and to the chairman of the board of governors.
We have now heard from the board that it, like us, welcomes this thorough and thoughtful examination of the activities of the external services and has agreed to publish the main report. I have therefore arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.
Hon. Members will not yet have had a chance to study the report in full detail, but it is lengthy and contains numerous recommendations. We are still considering our response to it, but I should like to take this opportunity to underline some of the main points in it.
I am happy to say that the review team confirmed the external services' reputation for the quality, accuracy and impartiality of its output, which serves to enhance Britain's image abroad. It was impressed by the dedication, professional skills and motivation of the external services' staff.
There were some criticisms, though. The review team emphasised, for example, that, for the external services to maintain their position in the world, the resources available must be used in the most efficient and sensible ways. It recommended some changes to Foreign Office procedures, and an increased flow of information between the BBC external services and the Foreign Office, to enable the Foreign Office to carry out more effectively its responsibilities for the prescription of the services and for the control of the grant-in-aid to the external services.
The team recommended improved systems and organisation within the external services to achieve more effective use of resources. In addition, following a detailed study of some activities, some changes were recommended, which are estimated to result in annual savings of up to £1.6 million during the next few years.
The team recommended that consideration should be given to fixing the grant-in-aid at the same time as the BBC licence fee—and for the same period—to improve the management and efficiency of the external services. This is a crucial recommendation, which we are naturally studying with special care.
On the future of high frequency transmission and the possible impact of new technology on external broadcasting, the team concluded that the situation should be kept under regular and systematic review. Clearly, new technology in communications is developing quickly and we must examine the opportunities carefully. Detailed discussions will now begin between the Foreign Office and the external services on the follow-up to these recommendations.
We welcome this report and the contribution it will make to improving the effectiveness and economy with which the external services are run. The relationship between the Government and the BBC in respect of the external services, including the Government's responsibilities for prescription and funding and the management responsibilities of the BBC board of governors, are clearly laid down in the royal charter and the licence and agreement. Nothing in the report implies any change in that relationship and those responsibilities, or in the traditional editorial independence of the external services.
We hope that the report will provide a firm foundation for the future development of the external services and that it will lead to improvements in the efficiency, effectiveness and economy with which they are run.
My hon. Friend referred to the capital programme. It is clear that many people have been misled by unfounded speculation about cuts. They have perhaps lost sight of the first objective — the improvement of the external services' worldwide audibility.
As my hon. Friend said, the Government are devoting over £100 million in 1981 prices to a 10-year development programme which is now almost half-way through. As a result of new medium wave transmitters at Ofordness and short wave transmitters at Rampisham, audibility has already been improved in many parts of Europe, including Eastern Europe, and new aerials in Cyprus have improved the quality of broadcasts to the Soviet Union and the Middle East. We had hoped to be well advanced at this stage in the construction of a short wave transmitting station in the United Kingdom at Bearley in order to make further essential improvements in audibility in Eastern Europe. However, after a lengthy public inquiry it was found, as my hon. Friend will know, that the site was unsuitable on environmental and technical grounds. We accepted this decision, of course, but it means a considerable setback to this very important part of the audibility programme. We are giving consideration to finding a solution to this problem and I am hopeful we shall overcome it.
On the other hand, work on the construction of a relay station in Hong Kong has been accelerated so that a start was made last year and, with an extra £2 million which we are pumping in in 1985–86, the project will now be completed in 1987–88, a year ahead of schedule, bringing significant improvements in audibility in the Far East, particularly in China and Japan. Plans are also far advanced to build another relay station to improve audibility in East Afica and I hope it may be possible to accelerate the present schedule so as to build that station over the next three years.
On cuts, my hon. Friend referred in astringent terms to the damage that, in his judgment, has been done, I appreciate that his main concern is about the alleged cuts in the currents expenditure of the external services, but in fact the grant-in-aid to the external services over the past five years has shown a real increase above inflation of some 18 per cent. At the same time the BBC has maintained broadcasting levels of between 716 and 725 hours a week in English and some 36 other languages.
My hon. Friend referred specifically to the cuts in services in 1982, but I should like to point out to him that in 1982 only the half-hour Maltese service was cut completely. The Spanish to Europe service, to which he referred, and the Italian direct services were replaced by recorded services for rebroadcasting locally, and the


French to Europe, Portuguese to Brazil and transciption services were each reduced by rather less than one-half. In return, these reductions were offset by increases in other services. For example, the Latin-American Spanish service was increased by 8 hours 45 minutes a week, following the Falklands invasion, and the Pushtu service to Afghanistan was doubled to 3½ hours a week. Therefore in 1985–86, contrary to popular belief, the grant-in-aid will not be cut but will be maintained at its 1984 level, uplifted by the factors applicable to all public expenditure.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: The BBC external services are very sensitive to the falling pound and the increased costs and are hoping that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will have some happy news. Would my hon. Friend like to be in the happy position of being able to give them happy news tonight?

Mr. Renton: No, I am not in the position of being able to give new happy news to the external services, but I should like to repeat to my hon. Friend something that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has said before: that, in addition to the factors applicable to all public expenditure that I have just mentioned, the external services will receive an extra £700,000 towards BBC pay increases above the civil service norm.
My hon. Friend talked of the £l·2 million that the external services will not receive. I appreciate that they requested that sum for disbursement mainly on increased pay-related allowances in 1985–86. As a result of the severe pressure on all Government spending, it was not

possible to exempt the external services completely from the economies that have affected the whole range of our representation overseas. We therefore asked them to find this sum from their own resources. My hon. Friend talked of life blood being drained away, but I must point out to him, and I am pleased to say this, that the external services have informed us that, despite difficulties, they will indeed be able to make the necessary savings without cutting any of their broadcasting services.
In the few months during which I have been a Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office I have been struck that so many people that I have met, from Norway to the sub-continent, have paid great compliments to the external services of the BBC. Those remarks were echoed in the opening sentences of my hon. Friend's speech tonight.
I recently visited Pakistan and Bangladesh, two important countries, where I found a large number of people who told me of the pleasure with which they listened to the BBC. At any given time many millions of people throughout the world are listening to the external services of the BBC. The House will appreciate that it is that fact that makes it so important that their transmission of British news should be accurate and impartial. A major responsibility lies on their shoulders to convey a fair picture free from bias at all times and I have no doubt that they are well aware of that.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Twelve o' clock.